Update on Yim v. National Institutes of Health
On March 29, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi granted a motion to dismisss my complaint against the National Institutes of Health. NIH had resisted responding to a document request under the Freedom of Information Act for:
““All updates to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines that were endorsed by a vote of the Panel. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2021 To 01/28/2021)”
The request was designed to confirm that the federal government had issued its recommendation without consulting the expert panel assembled to provide such recommendations on COVID treatments.
NIH failed to respond to the request within 20 business days as required by law. On March 29, 2021, I then filed a pro se complaint in federal court to force the issue. In an effort to settle the lawsuit, NIH made various evasive responses to the FOIA request. However, on August 27, 2021 responded directly to the FOIA request through an email from their attorney. The email stated:
“Please be advised that the link you supplied, to wit https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/archive/statement-on-ivermectin-01-14-2021.pdf, is a valid NIH link that directs you to the document responsive to your FOIA request (#55822).”
The response seemingly settled the matter. However, since an email through an attorney carries less legal weight than a signed document, I asked NIH to provide the same statement in a formal FOIA response letter. NIH declined to provide that letter.
In his ruling, Quraishi found that NIH had satisfied its obligations under FOIA and was not concerned that NIH was unable to provide its FOIA response in the format of a signed letter. More precisely, since I initially stated to the Defendent and the court that I just needed the FOIA response in an email, I had somehow forfeit my right to the standard formal FOIA response letter.
I am very doubtful that Quraishi’s legal reasoning is going to hold up under appeal.
(Further case documents are linked here.)