National Whistleblower Center v. Department of Health and Human Services
839 F. Supp. 2d 40
D.D.C.2012Background
- The case arises from FOIA requests to HHS by NWC and individual Plaintiffs about their employment records.
- Only Count 26 (expedited-processing regulation) remains at issue; other counts concern searches and disclosures.”
- FDA component has a final expedited-processing regulation; non-FDA components have not finalized rules.
- HHS has pursued a proposed rule since 1999 but has not issued a final rule for non-FDA components.
- Plaintiffs seek to compel final regulation and expedited processing; Defendants seek dismissal/summary judgment on standing and searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge expedited-rule | Plaintiffs allege ongoing and future injury from lack of final rule. | Plaintiffs lack cognizable injury and thus lack standing. | Plaintiffs lack standing; count dismissed. |
| FOIA jurisdiction to compel rulemaking | FOIA provides remedy to compel regulation. | Court lacks jurisdiction to order promulgation. | Court dismisses on standing; jurisdiction not reached. |
| Adequacy of searches for responsive records | Challenges to IOS and ASPR search adequacy. | Searches were adequate. | Grant summary judgment for Defendants on search-adequacy claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (injury and ongoing harm support standing; mootness discussed)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros., 317 F.3d 334 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (injury in fact required for injunctive relief; past harm insufficient)
- Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court can review outside pleadings on jurisdiction; standard for standing at dismissal stage)
- Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. FERC, 495 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (standing requires actual or imminent injury; speculative claims insufficient)
- Dominguez v. UAL Corp., 666 F.3d 1359 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (standing and injury-in-fact requirements; case-or-controversy)