Wright v. HHS, No. 22-1378, 2022 WL 18024624 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2022) (Contreras, J.)

Wright v. HHS, No. 22-1378, 2022 WL 18024624 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2022) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning COVID-19 vaccine safety studies

Disposition:  Denying defendant’s motion to dismiss

Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies & Procedural Requirements, Proper FOIA Requests:  The court relates that “HHS’s briefing acknowledges that [its] regulation provides:  ‘Requests must reasonably describe the records sought and contain sufficient information to enable the FOIA office to contact you and transmit records to you.’”  “‘If we determine that a request does not meet these requirements, we will attempt to contact you if possible.’”  “Despite this clear procedure, however, HHS never contacted [plaintiff] concerning any deficiencies in his request.”  “True, CDC contacted [plaintiff] to inform him that Item 3 was deficient because it was ‘unduly burdensome’ and ‘must be substantially narrowed.’”  “But that letter did not suggest that the phrase ‘refer or relate, in any way’ was what made Item 3 (or any of the items, for that matter) defective.”  “To the contrary, CDC actually characterized Items 1, 2, and 4 as ‘reasonably described.’”  The court finds that “HHS’s failure to follow its own regulation is fatal to its motion to dismiss.”  “If HHS believes [plaintiff’s] requests are overbroad or burdensome, it is required by its own regulation to specify these deficiencies to [plaintiff].”  “By neglecting its own procedure and challenging the reasonableness of [plaintiff’s] requests for the first time in Court, HHS has deprived [plaintiff] of an opportunity to cooperate with the agency to narrow the scope of his request without judicial intervention.”  Additionally, the court states that “[it] expects the parties to meet to discuss the scope of [plaintiff’s] request, pursuant to HHS’s own regulations at 45 C.F.R. § 5.24(b)(2) and consistent with [the] Opinion,” after noting both defendant’s “duty to construe FOIA requests liberally” and that plaintiff’s request “shares characteristics [with a request] which the court found overbroad.”