Ctr. for Med. Progress v. HHS, No. 21-641, 2025 WL 885214 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Walton, J.)

Ctr. for Med. Progress v. HHS, No. 21-641, 2025 WL 885214 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Walton, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning certain grant applications

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that “defendant argues that ‘[u]pon receipt of the [plaintiff’s document] requests [it] searched all logical locations for the information requested by searching the . . . [NIH’s] Information for Management Planning Analysis and Coordinator (‘IMPAC’) grants database and inquir[ed] with [the] NIMH’s Grants Management Branch Staff to determine whether there were any responsive records.’”  “Ultimately, the defendant contends that the ‘NIMH did not withhold any responsive records because the projects in question obtained funding through competitively awarded contracts, not grants[,]’ and therefore, ‘[it] did not withhold any responsive records because the projects in question obtained funding through competitively awarded contracts, not grants.’”  “The plaintiff argues in response that ‘[the d]efendant was reasonably aware of what records [the p]laintiff was requesting and failed to search for them by impermissibly narrowing the scope of [the p]laintiff’s request.’”  “[T]he Court concludes that the defendant properly determined the scope of the plaintiff’s FOIA request.”  “The plaintiff’s request sought a specific set of documents – grant applications[.]’”  “Based on the definition assigned to the term ‘grant’ by the NIH, it ‘determined that it did not have grant applications associated with the project numbers that [the p]laintiff referenced in its request[.]’”  “However, [defendant] found contract records responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request and asked [plaintiff] whether ‘th[e contract records would] serve [the plaintiff’s] needs, or [was the plaintiff] seeking something different[.]’”  “[Plaintiff] then confirmed that ‘[y]es, [he] believe[d] that is what [he] [was] looking for.’”  “‘Thank you . . . for all your good work.’”  “In her letter response to [plaintiff’s] email, [defendant] noted that ‘[plaintiff] clarified that [the] two contracts [her office] located . . . sounded like what [the plaintiff] w[as] seeking and that [defendant] was enclosing [two hundred fourteen pages] responsive to [his] request.’”  “Thus, the defendant had no duty to further ascribe any other meaning to the plaintiff’s requests as drafted and clarified by [plaintiff].”
  
  “Having concluded that the defendant properly determined the scope of the plaintiff’s FOIA request,” “the Court concludes that the defendant’s search in response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request was adequate.”  “The plaintiff largely focuses its argument on the contract records . . . ; however, for the reasons the Court outlined . . . , the contract records were not responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request, and whether the defendant searched for them does not impact the adequacy of the search.”  “Searching for the specific documents indicated in the plaintiff’s FOIA request, [defendant] searched the [grants] database using the project numbers provided by the plaintiff which returned no responsive records.”  “To be sure, after conducting her search, [defendant] then ‘contacted the NIMH Grants Management staff, who informed her that they have no responsive records related to grants for the project numbers provided.’”  “The defendant therefore concluded that all logical locations were searched which could have led to the discovery of responsive records.”  “Beyond the contract records already discussed, the plaintiff provides no further basis to challenge the good faith basis the Court must afford the defendant’s declarant in light of the ‘declaration that explain[s] the scope and method of [the] search in reasonable detail.’”  “Accordingly, the Court concludes that the search the defendant conducted in response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request was adequate.”