Hooker v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117552
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Hooker, a FOIA plaintiff, seeks CDC/HHS records about thimerosal and autism across four FOIA requests (Counts I–IV).
- CDC's responses predominantly withheld under Exemptions 5 and 6; in camera review conducted; several redactions ultimately released.
- Court ordered in camera review and supplemental declarations to assess adequacy of search and segregability.
- Plaintiff alleges bad faith and asserts broader scientific dispute over mercury in vaccines.
- Court grants in part and denies in part summary judgment, requiring further detail on search adequacy and segregability.
- Mootness concerns arise regarding unredacted documents from a third party; some issues framed as involving Count I only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was CDC's search for Count I adequate? | Hooker argues search was inadequate and failed to locate responsive records. | Maloney Decl. asserts search was reasonably calculated to uncover all records. | Partially granted; court cannot conclude search was adequate for Count I and requires supplement. |
| Was the Verstraeten-related Exemption 5 withholding proper? | Hooker contends Verstraeten communications were not intra-agency memoranda. | Verstraeten communications qualify as intra-agency under Klamath; deliberative process applies. | Exemption 5 applies; records deemed predecisional and deliberative. |
| Were Exemption 6 redactions properly applied and segregable? | Hooker challenges privacy redactions and seeks full disclosure; questions segregability. | Redactions protect personal privacy; some material non-exempt. | Exemption 6 applied; some redactions improper due to lack of adequate segregability demonstration. |
| Did defendants segregate non-exempt material after Exemption 5/6 redactions? | Hooker argues failure to segregate non-exempt info from exempt. | Defendants provided Vaughn indices; some sealing justified. | Court finds segregability insufficient for Exemption 6 portions; remands for additional review and supplemental declarations. |
| Did any conflicts arise regarding copy-right related exemptions or other exemptions (Counts II–IV)? | N/A or minimal challenge to Copyright Act processing. | Documents withheld under Copyright Act treated appropriately; exemptions limited. | Counts II–IV upheld to extent of exemptions; Copyright-based withholding conceded where not challenged. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1978) (FOIA purpose and exemptions context in Supreme Court)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonable search standard for FOIA)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (reasonableness of search; burden on agency)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2009) (affidavits must detail search scope/methods; rebuttal standard)
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (deliberative process privilege; predecisional/deliberative standard)
- Pies v. IRS, 668 F.2d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (exemption 5 and deliberative process; non-final drafts)
- Dow Jones & Co. v. DOJ, 917 F.2d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (outside consultants as intra-agency for Exemption 5)
- Formaldehyde Inst. v. DHHS, 889 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (publication-related FOIA decisions; publication of reports)
- Klamath v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 532 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2001) (outside consultants vs. agency deliberations for Exemption 5)