United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia - Center for ...

ARGUMENT
I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING L-3’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
The District Court developed a fact-based test to implement the Boyle
doctrine – namely, did the military exercise exclusive operational control
over L-3 employees. Even assuming arguendo that this test is sound, the
District Court overlooked critical evidence in applying the test to the record.
First, as described in Subsection A, the District Court ignored the facts
relating to CACI interrogators, not military interrogators, conspiring with L-
3 employees to abuse prisoners. Second, as described in Subsections B and
C, the District Court erred by wholly crediting L-3’s self-interested
testimony, including its testimony about the meaning of the contract term
“supervision.” This L-3 testimony was contradicted both internally by other
L-3 witnesses, and externally by military witnesses. The District Court
should not have granted summary judgment.
A. The District Court Failed to Consider Evidence That L-3
Translators Abused Prisoners on Their Own Initiative or Under
“Orders” From CACI Corporate Employees.
The District Court found the lawsuit alleged “actions of a type that…
violate clear United States policy,” Ibrahim I, 391 F.Supp.2d at 16, and
explained that “common law claims against private contractors will be
22