Am. Oversight v. HHS, No. 20-00947, 2020 WL 3469687 (D.D.C. June 25, 2020) (McFadden, J.)

Am. Oversight v. HHS, No. 20-00947, 2020 WL 3469687 (D.D.C. June 25, 2020) (McFadden, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning federal government's response to COVID-19 pandemic

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for consolidation of five cases

• Litigation Considerations:  The court holds that "[t]his is a close question, especially since all five cases involve the same plaintiff, at least one common agency defendant, the same general topic (COVID-19), and the same law."  "But ultimately, consolidation is not appropriate for most of these cases."  Regarding "first[,] the outlier of the five," the court finds that "besides its search for records, [plaintiff] alleges that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . . . has violated FOIA through 'a policy, pattern, or practice of declining to process reasonably described FOIA requests.'"  "None of the other four cases involves a similar claim, so that is not a common factual or legal question."  Similarly, the court finds that "there is little reason to consolidate the [second] case" because "there do not appear to be significant judicial efficiencies to be gained in transferring [that case] . . . ."  "Indeed, on [District Judge Mehta's] order, the parties have already conferred in that case and filed their first status report."  "Nor does the Court find that consolidation is appropriate with [a third case]."  "First, the only common agency between this case and that one is HHS."  Furthermore, "no countervailing factors strongly support consolidation."  "The scope of the requests is different."  The court finds that that case is "unlikely to present many overlapping documents or legal issues."  "So the Court will not order these cases consolidated, with one exception."  "The parties agree that this case should be consolidated with American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20-cv-1064 (JEB)."