Jud. Watch, Inc. v. HHS, No. 22-3051, 2024 WL 3924563 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Friedrich, J.)

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. HHS, No. 22-3051, 2024 WL 3924563 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Friedrich, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning human fetal tissue collection

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The court holds that “NIH properly withheld the names and titles of the two signatories of [a] [l]etter [sent to the University of Pittsburgh concerning the university’s procurement practices] under FOIA Exemption 6.”  “Under step one of the Exemption 6 analysis, the Court finds that disclosure of the employees’ identities would compromise more than a de minimis privacy interest because of the potential risk of harassment, threats, or injuries to the employees.”  “The threats and harassment that arise from the association with controversial research poses significant risks to individuals’ privacy, and courts regularly find that such risks justify withholding the identities of agency personnel.”  “[Defendant’s] declaration is both reasonably specific and reliable.”  “[Defendant’s] assertions are neither speculative nor conclusory . . . .”  “[Defendant] provides specific, concrete examples of past serious threats, levied against both NIH staff involved in Covid research and staff at other institutions involved in fetal tissue research.”
  
  “Under step two of the Exemption 6 analysis, [the court finds that] [plaintiff] has not articulated a public interest sufficient to outweigh the substantial privacy interests at stake.”  “As other courts have found, ‘no public interest is served by disclosure of the “names, email and/or mailing addresses, titles . . . and other personal information’” of specific agency employees.”  “Disclosing the identities of the two signatories of the . . . [l]etter would have minimal ‘incremental value’ in shedding light on NIH’s official activities.”  “[Plaintiff] speculates that the two signatories of the . . . letter might have been high-level NIH employees, who may have ‘had a conflict of interest or ties to’ the University of Pittsburgh, and so had a hypothetical motive to conceal alleged persistent problems in . . . grant renewals.”  “But there is nothing in the record to suggest, for example, that any conflicts of interest plagued NIH’s grant renewals or that inconsistencies with Progress Reports were a persistent phenomenon.”  “Nor are there any alleged conflicts of interest.”  “Absent evidentiary support, the Court will not credit such speculative theories.”  “HHS has also established that disclosure of the employees’ identities would result in a reasonably foreseeable harm to the privacy interests protected by Exemption 6.”  “NIH withheld the identities of the employees in order to protect those individuals from harassment and threats.”  “The very context of that withholding highlights the foreseeable harm of the risks to the employees’ privacy.”  “[T]he Court concludes that NIH properly withheld the names and titles of the two signatories of the . . . [l]etter under FOIA Exemption 6.”  “Any minimal public benefit of disclosing the NIH employees’ names and titles does not outweigh the substantial privacy interests at stake.”
   
• ​​​​​​​Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  The court holds that “[plaintiff’s] motion for limited discovery will be denied because it has not shown bad faith on the part of HHS.”