Skip to main content

Sweigert v. NIH, No. 23-9542, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202291 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2023) (Swain, C.J.)

Date

Sweigert v. NIH, No. 23-9542, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202291 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2023) (Swain, C.J.)

Re:  Request for certain records of NIH and NIH Acting Director

Disposition:  Transferring case to the District Court for the District of Columbia

  • Litigation Considerations, Venue:  “In the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”  “Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in this District because ‘venue is premised on the place of business of the field[] offices of N.I.H. in this district and is proper in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).’”  “As noted above, however, Section 552(a)(4)(B) considers the place of business of ‘the complainant,’ not the agency.”  “Thus, Plaintiff’s assertion that this District is a proper venue for his FOIA action is not supported by FOIA’s venue provision because Plaintiff does not reside in this District and the agency records are not situated here.”  “Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction under Section 552(a)(4)(B) to enjoin NIH from withholding records or ordering it to produce records.”  “Rather, the complaint indicates that the District of South Dakota, where Plaintiff resides, would have jurisdiction to enjoin the NIH from withholding records or ordering it to produce records.”  “The complaint also suggests that the District of Maryland, the district where NIH is located, might have jurisdiction to enjoin or order the NIH to refrain from withholding records and produce them.”  “The Court concludes, however, that the District of Columbia is the proper venue for this action because it is unclear if the records Plaintiff seeks are situated in the District of Maryland.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Venue and Removal
Updated December 5, 2023