Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled the Center for Disease Control and Prevention properly withheld portions of written correspondence regarding two Danish studies on the connection between vaccines containing thimerosal and the occurrence of autism under Exemption 5 (privileges). In so doing, Jackson made several interesting observations concerning the coverage of Exemption 5 as well as the responsibilities of an agency to search for archived emails. The multi-part request involved in the case was submitted by Brian Hooker, a parent whose son was autistic and had a case pending before the judicial body commonly referred to as the "Vaccine Court." Jackson made clear that "the merits of the scientific dispute of great significance to parents and medical professionals alike are not at issue here, and the Court will not undertake to resolve it." She added that "even if plaintiff's frustration with the agency's position on the science is well founded, he has not identified any facts that would demonstrate bad faith in the defendants' response to his FOIA request." Although the agency referred the requests to several components, the primary office involved was the National Immunization Program. Hooker's requests encompassed correspondence with former CDC employee Dr. Thomas Verstraeten as well as email records that had been sent to Dr. Robert Chen. While the agency relied primarily on Exemption 5; it also withheld some records under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Jackson first addressed the agency's search. The agency had told the court that NIP had searched its records pertaining to the two studies and had found no responsive records. Jackson pointed out that "this description of the search is too cursory to persuade the Court that the search was adequate. Although the declaration identifies the offices to which the request was forwarded, it fails to explain either why those offices were the reasonably likely locations of the records sought or describe with specificity the search methodology used, including what records were searched, by whom, and using what process or search terms." She told the agency "to amend or supplement [its] declarations with additional detailâ€"including a description of the search methods employed by CDC, the names and roles of the individuals who performed the searches, and a list of the search terms usedâ€"so that the Court can determine whether defendants have met their obligations under FOIA." But Jackson agreed the agency had adequately searched for emails sent to Chen, who apparently had not retained them. The agency argued that it kept emails for only two weeks and then permanently deleted them and re-used the storage space. Accepting the agency's explanation, Jackson noted that "FOIA does not require a perfect search, only a reasonable one. Here, defendants' affidavits adequately explain why no emails were located from Dr. Chen. Plaintiff's challenge that more emails should be available is based only on speculation. By conducting multiple searches for emails responsive to plaintiff's request and submitting a declaration addressing the existence of an email archival system or central server defendants have demonstrated that their search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." The agency claimed most of the information withheld fell within Exemption 5. Hooker argued the agency could not withhold documents exchanged between CDC and the Danish outside researchers and between CDC and Dr. Verstraeten because they did not qualify as intra-agency records. Jackson initially noted the agency had disclosed the materials concerning the Danish researchers during the course of the litigation so they were no longer at issue. As to the Verstraeten records, Hooker contended that although Verstraeten was the author of a relevant manuscript written while he worked at CDC, once he left the agency he was no longer sufficiently involved with the agency to qualify as a consultant. Jackson disagreed. She pointed out that "although Dr. Verstraeten may not have directly conducted or instigated additional analyses after leaving CDC, [a letter he wrote] demonstrates that he played the same role in the agency's process of deliberation after his departure that he would have played had he remained: reviewing, revising, and finalizing the draft. Indeed, he was named as a CDC employee on a manuscript finalized and published after he left CDC." Jackson added that "the fact that Dr. Verstraeten may have had a new employer is not dispositive. . .The Court's review of the records supports Dr. Verstraeten's claim that he was not promoting his personal interests or those of his private employer, but that he was working to ensure 'the scientific and public health merit' of the published studies in which he was involved." Hooker argued the withheld records were neither predecisional nor deliberative. He claimed that some of the records were essentially subsequent justifications for the agency's 1999 decision to support the use of thimerosal vaccines. But Jackson observed that Hooker's request specifically asked for information about the agency's response to a 2003 article and explained that "the D.C. Circuit has found that where a plaintiff requests records of correspondence surrounding or leading up to an agency publication, the relevant agency decision for purposes of applying the deliberative process privilege is the decision to publish. Having chosen to focus his FOIA inquiry on correspondence surrounding the agency's 2003 publication of the thimerosal manuscript, plaintiff cannot now point to an earlier agency decision to attempt to argue that the withheld documents were actually post-decisional." Turning to the deliberative nature of the records, Jackson noted that "while the documents here included some discussion of factual matters, such as test results and which tests should be run again, they involve deliberation and discussion about the data, not mere summaries." She added that "here, the draft manuscript referenced by plaintiffâ€"though initially rejected for publication in certain journalsâ€"was never finalized or approved as a reflection of agency policy in its draft form. . .The Court finds that the withheld documents can best be described as an ongoing, collaborative dialogue about the manuscript." Hooker also challenged the withholding under Exemption 6 of personal information about Danish researcher Poul Thorsen because he had been indicted for fraudulently obtaining more than $1 million in CDC grants, which, Hooker charged, cast doubts on the veracity of his work. Rejecting Hooker's claim, Jackson pointed out that "plaintiff has not articulated any significant public interest in the disclosure of a comment about Dr. Thorsen's personal life." She added that "the disclosure of a comment relating to Dr. Thorsen's personal life would not improve the public's understanding of how the government operates. There is no indication that CDC, the alleged victim, was complicit in the charged scheme to defraud the agency of over $1 million of research grant funds. So, the mere fact that Dr. Thorsen has been indicted does not transform his personal information into information about what the government 'is up to.'"
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional

FOIA Project Annotation: In granting summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services after the agency rectified problems involved in its search and its use of Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Judge Amy Berman Jackson touched on an issue that gets little attention in the FOIA process�"the use of records disclosed previously to another FOIA requester. Dr. Brian Hooker, who had requested records from the Centers for Disease Control pertaining to two Danish studies on the incidence of autism, argued that the agency had failed to provide most of the records disclosed to a previous requester. Hooker argued that although the previous requester received 293 pages the agency failed "to provide him with 228 of those pages�"which allegedly deal directly with the incidence of autism in Denmark�"and their failure to search the records of individuals at [the National Immunization Program] who were listed as email originators or recipients on those 228 documents demonstrates that defendants did not conduct an adequate search in response to [his] FOIA request." But Jackson pointed out that "the discrepancy between the documents produced to [Jeffrey] Trelka and those produced to plaintiff does not demonstrate the inadequacy of defendants' search because the scope of the two requests was different. Plaintiff's FOIA request sought correspondence relating to two specific studies published by authors in Denmark. By contrast Mr. Trelka sought: (1) 'all email correspondences between CDC NIP researchers and officials and Dr. Harald Heijbel and Peet Tull regarding thimerosal exposure levels in childhood vaccinations in Sweden;' and (2) all email correspondences between CDC NIP researchers and Diane Simpson, Paul Stehr-Green, Michael Stellfeld, and Preben-Bo Mortenson 'regarding thimerosal exposure in Denmark and Sweden.'" She noted that "with respect to the 228 pages at issue, plaintiff has not alleged that these documents relate to the two autism studies that were the subject of his FOIA request; he only contends that they 'deal directly with the autism incidence in Denmark.' But defendants were not obligated to expand the scope of plaintiff's request to include all correspondences regarding the incidence of autism in Denmark, and their failure to do so does not undermine the adequacy of their search." While Jackson agreed with the agency's position, what is troubling in situations like this is the consistent reluctance of agencies to disclose even non-exempt information. While the records are not directly responsive to Hooker's request, they certainly seem germane enough to merit disclosure.
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Adequacy - Search

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2011-07-14	1	COMPLAINT against THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616040701) filed by BRIAN S. HOOKER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
2011-07-14		SUMMONS (4) Issued as to THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
2011-07-14	2	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by BRIAN S. HOOKER (jf, ) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
2011-07-20	3	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS served on 7/15/2011 (Turner, James) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
2011-07-21	4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. THOMAS R. FRIEDEN served on 7/15/2011 (Turner, James) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2011-07-21	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 07/15/2011. (Turner, James) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2011-07-21	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 7/15/2011. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 8/14/2011. (Turner, James) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2011-08-29		Summons Issued (1) as to US Attorney (mmh) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
2011-08-31	7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/31/2011. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/30/2011. (Turner, James) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
2011-09-29	8	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS.(Roback, Harry) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
2011-09-30	9	ORDER that defendant shall file a dispositive motion or, in the alternative, a report re its document production schedule on or before 10/28/2011. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/30/2011. (MT) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
2011-09-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall either file a dispositive motion or a report regarding its document production schedule by 10/28/2011. (jth) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
2011-10-27	10	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, KATHLEEN G. SEBELIUS (Roback, Harry) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
2011-10-28		MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. The dispositive motion is due 11/4/2011. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/28/2011. (MT) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
2011-10-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion is due by 11/4/2011. (zjth) (Entered: 10/29/2011)
2011-11-04	11	MOTION for Summary Judgment by THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, KATHLEEN G. SEBELIUS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Maloney Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A (Vaughn Index), # 3 Exhibit Additional Exhibits to Maloney Declaration)(Roback, Harry) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
2011-11-15	12	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Turner, James) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
2011-11-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The response is due by 12/9/2011 and the reply is due by 12/23/2011. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/16/2011. (MT) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
2011-11-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/9/2011; Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/23/2011. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
2011-12-01	13	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Robert E. Reeves, :Firm- Reeves Law Office, :Address- 167 W. Main St., Suite 500. Phone No. - 859-226-0700. Fax No. - 888-316-8801 by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert E. Reeves, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Turner, James) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
2011-12-09		MINUTE ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave of Robert E. Reeves to Appear Pro Hac Vice only upon condition that the lawyer admitted, or at least one member of the lawyer's firm, undergo CM/ECF training, obtain a CM/ECF username and password, and agree to file papers electronically. No court papers will be mailed to any lawyer. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/9/2012. (MT) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
2011-12-09	14	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Turner, James) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
2011-12-13		MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The response is due by 12/14/2011. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/13/2011. (MT) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
2011-12-15	15	Memorandum in opposition to re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BRIAN S. HOOKER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit EX 1A - Declaration Trelka, # 3 Exhibit EX 1B - Madsen Email 6-13-01, # 4 Exhibit EX 1C - Simpson Email 8-2-01, # 5 Exhibit EX 2A - Verstraeten Ltr to Pediatrics 4-04, # 6 Exhibit EX 3A - Chen Simpson Emails, # 7 Exhibit EX 3B - Miller Emails, # 8 Exhibit EX 4A - Ltr SmithKline to CDC 7-31-99, # 9 Exhibit EX 4B - Ltr CDC to SmithKline 11-26-99, # 10 Exhibit EX 4C - Dr Meyers et al to APA 7-5-99, # 11 Exhibit EX 4D - Declaration Redwood, # 12 Exhibit EX 5 - Declaration Weldon, # 13 Exhibit EX 5A - Declaration Hooker, # 14 Exhibit EX 5B - Redacted Madsen Lauritsen Emails, # 15 Exhibit EX 5C - Unredacted Madsen Lauritsen Emails, # 16 Exhibit EX 5D - Cordero Madsen et al 2003 Pub Recommendation, # 17 Exhibit EX 5E - 74 FR 4683, # 18 Exhibit EX 5F - Pediatrics Reviewer Comments, # 19 Exhibit EX 5G - Madsen et al Pediatrics 2003, # 20 Exhibit EX 6A - FOIA CDC Denmark Paper Pt 1, # 21 Exhibit EX 6B - FOIA CDC Denmark Paper Pt 2, # 22 Exhibit EX 6C - FOIA CDC Denmark Paper Pt 3, # 23 Exhibit EX 6D - FOIA CDC Denmark Paper Pt 4, # 24 Exhibit EX 7 - Critique of Five Studies re Thimerosal, # 25 Exhibit EX 8 - Thimerosal Timeline, # 26 Exhibit EX 9A - Thorsen Indictment, # 27 Exhibit EX 10A - CDC FOIA 05-0435 PT 1, # 28 Exhibit EX 10B - CDC FOIA 05-0435 PT 2, # 29 Exhibit EX 10C - CDC FOIA 05-0435 PT 3, # 30 Exhibit EX 11 - HHS FOIA Release 11-7-11)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
2011-12-16	16	Unopposed MOTION for Order by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
2011-12-19		MINUTE ORDER granting 16 Unopposed Motion for Order. Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion for summary judgment may be filed December 15, 2011 nunc pro tunc and the reply will be due 1/13/2012. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/19/2011. (MT) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
2011-12-19		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 1/13/2012. (jth) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
2012-01-11	17	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in support of dispositive motion by THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, KATHLEEN G. SEBELIUS (Roback, Harry) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
2012-01-12		MINUTE ORDER granting 17 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment, The Reply is due by 1/27/2012. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/12/2012. (MT) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
2012-01-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/27/2012. (jth) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
2012-01-24	18	NOTICE of Proposed Order to Substitute Parties by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
2012-01-25	19	ORDER that Kathleen Sebelius is removed as a Defendant, and replaced by the United States Department of Health and Human Service as a properly named Defendant. Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH is removed as a Defendant, replaced by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a properly named Defendant. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/25/2012. (jth) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
2012-01-26	20	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Roback, Harry) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
2012-01-27		MINUTE ORDER granting 20 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The reply will be due 2/3/2012. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/27/2011. (MT) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
2012-02-03	21	REPLY to opposition to motion re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Norris Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Trelka FOIA Request)(Roback, Harry) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
2012-02-06	22	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Mercedeh Momeni on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Harry B. Roback (Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
2012-02-10	23	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Response by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-13		MINUTE ORDER denying 23 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Response. Plaintiff addressed the issues for which he seeks to file a sur-reply in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and the defendant's reply did not raise new issues. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/13/2012. (MT) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
2012-07-03		MINUTE ORDER Defendant is directed to deliver the documents withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) to chambers by Friday, July 13, 2012, for in camera inspection to assist the Court in making a responsible de novo determination. Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/3/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
2012-07-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants are directed to deliver the documents withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) to chambers for an in camera inspection to assist the Court in making a responsible de novo determination. In-Camera Submission is due by Friday, 7/13/2012. (jth) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
2012-08-21	24	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further ORDERED that defendants must: (1) conduct an additional review of records withheld under Exemption 6; (2) produce all segregable non-exempt information; and (3) submit a supplemental declaration demonstrating that they have complied with their duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt information by September 21, 2012. See Order and Memorandum Opinion for full details. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/21/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
2012-08-21	25	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/21/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
2012-08-22		Set/Reset Deadline: Supplemental Declaration is due by 9/21/2012. (jth) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
2012-09-19	26	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to the Court's August 21, 2012 Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
2012-09-19		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Court's Order. Defendants must file its response to the Court's Order of August 21, 2012, on or before October 12, 2012. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/19/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
2012-09-19		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Supplemental Declaration is now due by 10/12/2012. (jth) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
2012-09-21	27	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 24 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supp. Norris Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
2012-10-12	28	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 24 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 2nd Supplemental Norris Decl., # 2 Exhibit Norris Decl. Exh A, # 3 Exhibit Norris Decl. Exh B)(Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
2012-10-15		MINUTE ORDER. In response to the Court's August 21, 2012 order, defendants have: (1) conducted an additional review of records withheld under Exemption 6; (2) produced additional segregable non-exempt information; and (3) submitted a supplemental declaration asserting that they have complied with their duty to search for responsive information and segregate exempt from non-exempt information. [Dkt. # 27 & 28]. Therefore, without rearguing any matters upon which the Court has already ruled, plaintiff shall inform the Court by October 25, 2012 of his position on whether the defendants have complied with the Court's August 21, 2012 order and whether there is any remaining reason why this Court should not enter judgment in favor of the defendants. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/15/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
2012-10-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff shall inform the Court of his position on whether defendants have complied with the order of 8/21/2012 and whether there is any remaining reason why this Court should not enter judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff shall so inform the Court by 10/25/2012. (jth) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
2012-10-24	29	MOTION for Order by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-24		MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff will respond to the Court's October 15, 2012 minute order by November 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/24/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff will respond to the Court's 10/15/2012 minute order by 11/15/2012. (jth) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-11-15	30	AFFIDAVIT DECLARATION, RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by BRIAN S. HOOKER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Statement of Facts, # 12 Statement of Facts)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
2012-11-15	31	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Leave to File Additional Response to Pending Summary Judgment by Defendants by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Brian S. Hooker 11-15-12)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
2012-11-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiff's additional response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by January 15, 2013. The Court also notes that LCvR 7(m) requires that "before filing any nondispositive motion in a civil action, counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel" to determine whether there is opposition and to narrow any areas of disagreement. The rule also requires the party to include in the motion a statement that the conversation occurred and whether the motion is opposed. The Court orders plaintiff to comply with this rule when filing future nondispositive motions. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/16/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
2012-11-26	32	MOTION to Strike 30 Affidavit, and All Attachments Thereto by KATHLEEN G. SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
2012-12-07	33	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Extend Time to File)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
2012-12-10		MINUTE ORDER granting 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to strike is due by December 21, 2012 and defendants' reply is due by January 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/10/2012. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2012-12-21	34	RESPONSE re 32 MOTION to Strike 30 Affidavit, and All Attachments Thereto filed by BRIAN S. HOOKER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
2013-01-10	35	REPLY to opposition to motion re 32 MOTION to Strike 30 Affidavit, and All Attachments Thereto filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
2013-01-10	36	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Dr. Brian S. Hooker, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 1, # 4 Exhibit Attachment 2, # 5 Exhibit Attachment 3, # 6 Exhibit Attachment 4, # 7 Exhibit Attachment 5, # 8 Exhibit Attachment 6)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
2013-01-11		MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's additional response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by February 22, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/11/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
2013-01-31	37	NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert E Reeves (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
2013-02-22	38	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Additional Response) to the Defendants Pending Motion for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Robert E. Reeves, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Dr. Brian Hooker)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
2013-02-22		MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's additional response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by March 8, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/22/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
2013-03-08	39	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Robert E. Reeves)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
2013-03-11		MINUTE ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's additional response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by March 13, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/11/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
2013-03-13	40	RESPONSE re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BRIAN S. HOOKER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Dr. Brian S. Hooker, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 28, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 29)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
2013-03-14		NOTICE OF ERROR re 40 Response to motion; emailed to rereeveslaw@gmail.com, cc'd 6 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Two-part docket entry, 2. Please refile document, 3. under the Motions category for summary judgment (jf, ) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
2013-03-14	41	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defts Motion for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Brian S. Hooker Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 28, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 29)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
2013-03-26	42	MOTION to Strike 40 Response to motion,,, 41 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defts Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A - Suppl. Release)(Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
2013-04-05	43	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-08		MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' Motion to Strike is due by April 23, 2013. Defendants' reply is due by May 3, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/8/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
2013-04-22	44	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Deft's Motion to Strike in Regard to Plts Resp to Defts Motion for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
2013-04-22	45	Proposed Order re 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Deft's Motion to Strike in Regard to Plts Resp to Defts Motion for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) Modified on 4/23/2013 to correct docket event/text (jf, ). (Entered: 04/22/2013)
2013-04-23		MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Order. Instead of granting defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 42] as conceded, the Court will allow that pleading to stand and permit plaintiff to cure any procedural deficiency in its cross-motion. Therefore, it is ORDERED that plaintiff file by April 26, 2013, a document that includes information to cure any procedural deficiencies in his cross-motion and responds to defendants' motion to strike his cross-motion [Dkt. # 42]. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/23/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
2013-04-23		NOTICE OF ERROR re 45 Motion for Order; emailed to rereeveslaw@gmail.com, cc'd 6 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Incorrect event used, 2. DO NOT REFILE- Counsel should not use the Motion category to file a non-motion document (jf, ) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
2013-04-26	46	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Proposed Order by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
2013-04-26		MINUTE ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's response to the defendants' Motion to Strike Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 42) is due by April 30, 2013. And it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's supplemental pleading to correct his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 41) is due by May 2, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/26/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
2013-04-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleading to correct his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt # 41) is due by 5/2/2013. (jth) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
2013-04-30	47	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File and proposed order by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
2013-05-01		MINUTE ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's response to the defendants' Motion to Strike Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 42) is due by May 9, 2013. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's supplemental pleading to correct his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 41) is due by May 9, 2013. And it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' reply in support of their motion to strike [Dkt. # 42] is due by June 10, 2013. The Court notes that it will not be inclined to extend the time further given number of extensions previously granted, and the extensive, wide-ranging briefing that has already been submitted at a point in the proceedings where only a few very narrow issues remain. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/1/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
2013-05-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Strike Summary Judgment (Dkt #42) is due by 5/9/2013. Plaintiff's Supplemental pleading to correct his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt #41) is due by 5/9/2013. Defendants' reply in support of their motion to strike (Dkt #42) is due by 6/10/2013. (jth) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
2013-05-03	48	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply with Minute Order by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
2013-05-03		MINUTE ORDER granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's response to the defendants' Motion to Strike Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 42) is due by May 15, 2013. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's supplemental pleading to correct his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 41) is due by May 15, 2013. And it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' reply in support of their motion to strike [Dkt. # 42] is due by June 14, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/3/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
2013-05-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's response to the defendants' Motion to Strike Summary Judgment (Dkt # 42), and plaintiff's supplemental pleading to correct his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt # 41) are due by 5/15/2013. Defendants' reply in support of the motion to strike [Dkt # 42] is due by 6/14/2013. (jth) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
2013-05-16	49	RESPONSE re 42 MOTION to Strike 40 Response to motion,,, 41 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defts Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BRIAN S. HOOKER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Brian Hooker, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)(Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
2013-05-17	50	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
2013-05-17	51	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File with Proposed Order by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
2013-05-18		NOTICE OF ERROR re 50 Motion for Summary Judgment; emailed to rereeveslaw@gmail.com, cc'd 6 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. DO NOT REFILE- This is consider a premature filing as to #51; I will refer this to Chambers (jf, ) (Entered: 05/18/2013)
2013-05-20		MINUTE ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to file out of time is granted. Plaintiff's response to defendants' Motion to Strike [Dkt. # 49] and plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #50] are accepted. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/20/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
2013-06-14	52	Memorandum in opposition to re 50 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Exh. A)(Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
2013-06-14	53	REPLY to opposition to motion re 42 MOTION to Strike 40 Response to motion,,, 41 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defts Motion for Summary Judgment filed by KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Exh. A)(Momeni, Mercedeh) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
2013-06-24	54	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply with Proposed ORDER by BRIAN S. HOOKER (Reeves, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-06-24		MINUTE ORDER denying 54 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Court has given plaintiff ample opportunity to address the two issues that remain in this case. Plaintiff has submitted: (1) a November 2012 declaration [Dkt. # 30]; (2) a December 2012 response to defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's November 2012 declaration, which attached another declaration [Dkt. #s 34 & 34-1]; (3) a March 2013 supplemental response to defendants' original summary judgment motion and another declaration [Dkt. #s 40 & 40-1]; (4) two cross-motions for summary judgment [Dkt. #s 41 & 50]; and (5) a May 2013 response to defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's cross-motion with another declaration attached [Dkt. #s 49 & 49-1]. Further, the Court's May 1, 2013 minute order granting plaintiff's last motion for extension of time provided: "The Court notes that it will not be inclined to extend the time further given number of extensions previously granted, and the extensive, wide-ranging briefing that has already been submitted at a point in the proceedings where only a few very narrow issues remain." In light of plaintiff's extensive briefing on the two remaining issues, the Court's May 1, 2013 minute order, and plaintiff's failure to provide a reason as to why an extension is needed or warranted, plaintiff's motion for extension of time [Dkt. # 54] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/24/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-07-09	55	ORDER granting defendants' motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 11]; denying plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment [Dkt. #s 41 and 50]; denying as moot defendants' motions to strike [Dkt. #s 32 and 42]. See order for details. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/9/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
2013-07-09	56	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/9/2013. (lcabj2) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
Hide Docket Events