Post on 11-Jul-2020
transcript
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 1 of 37
Document Pages Description
Nature of
Withholding Basis for Withholding
1 1
Two emails exchanged on November 13, 2002 among
Marlene Lauritsen, Poul Thorsen, Kreesten Madsen, and
Diana Schendel (CDC employee) regarding manuscript
entitled "Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism;
Negative evidence from Danish population-based data" Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is a discussion regarding the submission
of a manuscript for publication and a discussion of different
drafts of the manuscript.
5 U.S.C. § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is a comment about one of the author's work
status. Disclosure of this information would constitute an
invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
2 8
Draft manuscript entitled "Thimerosal and the
occurrence of autism; Negative evidence from Danish
population-based data" attached to November 13, 2002
email (Document 1)
Entire
document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This
document is a draft manuscript. A draft is the author's
recommendation of what the final document should say.
There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information
in this document, because any non-exempt information would
leave only meaningless words and phrases
3 1
December 5, 2002, email from Coleen Boyle (CDC
employee) to Diana Schendel (CDC employee) and Poul
Thorsen forwarding draft letter of support for
thimerosal manuscript Released in full n/a
4 1
Draft letter attached to December 5, 2002 email
(Document 3)
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This
document is a draft letter. A draft is the author's
recommendation of what the final document should say.
There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information
in this document, because any non-exempt information would
leave only meaningless words and phrases
Request 05-499
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 2 of 37
5 2
Two emails exchanged on December 13, 2002 among
Poul Thorsen, Diana Schendel (CDC employee), Kreesten
Madsen, with copies to Marlene Lauritsen, and Preben
Mortensen, regarding Congressional inquiry on autism
data. Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is a discussion of a proposed response.
The document is an internal HHS communcation discussing a
proposed response to a Congressional inquiry.
6 2
December 16, 2002 reply from Kreesten Madsen, in
response to Document 5. Reply has been released in
full; original two emails have identical redactions as
Document 5. Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is a discussion of a proposed response.
The document is an internal HHS communcation discussing a
proposed response to a Congressional inquiry.
7 1
December 16, 2002 email from Diana Schendel to
Kreesten Madsen and December 17, 2002 reply. Emails
discussing proposed response to Congressional inquiry
on autism data Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is a discussion of a proposed response.
The document is an internal HHS communcation discussing a
proposed response to a Congressional inquiry.
8 2
January 23, 2003 email, and underlying chain, regarding
reviewer's comments to manuscript.
Email released
in full n/a
9 4
Document, attached to January 23, 2003 email
(Document 8) containing reviewer's comments and
responses thereto
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document contains reviewer comments and responses
thereto, which are used to make edits to and prepare the final
draft of a manuscript. There was no reasonably segregable,
non-exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases
10 2
August 15, 2003 email chain with proposed press
release. Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is the mobile phone number of Kreeseten
Madsen. Disclosure of this information would constitute an
invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 3 of 37
11 1
September 1, 2003 email from Kreeseten Madsen to
Diana Schendel (CDC employee) Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is the mobile phone number of Kreeseten
Madsen. Disclosure of this information would constitute an
invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
12 2
November 26, 2002 chain of emails between Poul
Thorsen, Diana Schendel (CDC employee), and Coleen
Boyce (CDC employee), with a copy to Jose Cordero
(CDC employee) regarding draft cover letter to
manuscript. Redacted
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This
document is a draft letter. A draft is the author's
recommendation of what the final document should say.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is a comment about Poul Thorsen's personal life.
Disclosure of this information would constitute an invasion of
privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld
information would reveal nothing about the operations or
activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 3 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 4 of 37
Document Pages Description
Nature of
Withholding Basis for Withholding
13 6
Article: "A Retrospective Cohort Study of the
Association of Varicella Vaccine Failure With Asthma,
Steroid Use, Age at Vaccination, and Measles-Mumps-
Rubella Vaccination," by Thomas Verstraeten, et al, in
Pediatrics Vol. 112, No. 2, August 2003
Entire
Document
Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to
the Copyright Act.
14 1
January 28, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destafano and reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information and a statement of
the reason for a new phone number. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
15 1
July 3, 2001 email from Thomas Verstraeten to William
Thompson discussing analysis for “Safety of Thimerosal-
Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of
Computerized Health Maintenance Organization
Databases.” (hereinafter "Thimerosal Manuscript")
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. This document
includes contact information. Disclosure of this information
would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.
Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing
about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component
thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases
Request 05-680
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 4 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 5 of 37
16 1
February 28, 2002 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
William Thompson. Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document contains an internal HHS communication discussing
a pending study.
17 2
February 26, 2002 email chain between Frank
Destefano, Thomas Verstraeten, and others. Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof. The remainder of this document was
released during preparation of this index.
18 1
March 3, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Robert Davis, Frank Destefano, Robert Chen, and
William Thomson regarding speech delay Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document contains an internal HHS communication discussing
a pending study and a draft manuscript.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 5 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 6 of 37
19 1
December 10, 2001 email from William Thompson to
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and David Shay
regarding Thimerosal Manuscript and December 11,
2001 reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document contains an internal HHS communication discussing
the analysis underlying a draft manuscript..
20 2
December 2001 chain of emails among Thomas
Verstraeten, William Thompson, Robert Davis, and
David Shay regarding Thimerosal Manuscript Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 6 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 7 of 37
21 1
December 10, 2001 email from William Thompson to
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and David Shay
regarding Thimerosal Manuscript and December 11,
2001 reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript.
22 1
December 10, 2001 email from William Thompson to
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and David Shay
regarding Thimerosal Manuscript and December 11,
2001 reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 7 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 8 of 37
23 3
December 2001 chain of emails regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript Redactions
b(6) - 5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript.
24 1
Chain of emails between Thomas Verstraeten, Frank
Destefano, and Robert Davis regarding manuscript
entitled "Tetanus Immunity and Multiple Sclerosis"
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
review of a draft manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases
25 5 Reviewer comments attached to Document 24
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document consists of reviewer comments, which are used by
HHS to make edits to draft manuscripts and evaluate whether
to seek publication of a manuscript. This document also
includes information about the manuscript's publication
status. There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt
information in this document, because any non-exempt
information would leave only meaningless words and phrases.
26 2 GSK job listing for Clinical Safety Manager Released in full
This document was originally withheld, but was released in full
during Plaintiff's appeal.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 8 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 9 of 37
27 1
February 10, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and others regarding
Varicella-asthma article Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript.
28 2
April 28, 2003 email from Morag Menzies to Tom
Verstraeten regarding David Horrobin and "Tetanus
Immunity and Multiple Sclerosis;" email chain between
Tom Verstraeten, Frank Destefano, and Robert Davis in
response Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information includes contact information and a discussion of
an individual's personal life. Disclosure of this information
would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.
Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing
about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component
thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
potential publication of a draft manuscript.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 9 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 10 of 37
29 2
May 5, 2003 chain of emails between Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Phillip Rhodes, Frank
Destefano, and Trudy Murphy regarding "VSD exrended
FU for intessusception" Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript.
30 1
May 12, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas
Verstraeten Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
31 1
June 3, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas
Verstraeten Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
32 2
June 2003 chain of emails between Thomas Verstraeten
and Frank Destefano Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information Dr. Verstraeten's
comments on prior interactions with Dr. Feigin. Disclosure of
this information would constitute an invasion of privacy of
these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information
would reveal nothing about the operations or activities of
HHS, or any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 10 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 11 of 37
33 1
June 26, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas
Verstraeten Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
34 1
June 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano,
Thomas Verstraeten, and Robert Chen Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
35 1
July 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano,
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen, and Robert Davis Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
36 1
July 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano,
William Thompson, Robert Davis, and Robert Chen Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 11 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 12 of 37
37 1
July 2003 chain of email between Frank Destefano,
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen, and others Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
38 2
July 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano and
Thomas Verstraeten Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information and a discussion of
personal plans. Disclosure of this information would constitute
an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript.
39 1
January 4 5, 2004 emails between Frank Destefano and
Thomas Verstraeten regarding a forthcoming article Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information and comments regarding
Frank Destefano's activities. Disclosure of this information
would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.
Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing
about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component
thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 12 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 13 of 37
40 11
July 21, 2003 email from Frank Destefano forwarding an
article entitled "UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict"
Redactions on
first page,
remainder of
document
withheld in its
entirety
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to
the Copyright Act.
41 1
July 22, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert
Chen, Thomas Verstraeten, and others Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
42 1
August 14, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas
Verstraeten and August 12, 2003 e-mail from Charles
LeBaron regarding Pediatrics article Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
43 1
August 15, 2003 emails between Frank Destefano and
Thomas Verstraeten Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information and a discussion of
personal plans. Disclosure of this information would constitute
an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 13 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 14 of 37
44 1
August 26, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
45 1
September 4, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
46 1
September 18, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to
Thomas Verstraeten and Rob Davis, and underlying
email chain
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
possible assistance from another researcher. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases
47 1
September 23, 2003 email from Dan Zacherek to Frank
Destefano, Steve Wilson, and Thomas Verstraeten, and
September 24, 2003 response from Frank Destefano Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 15 of 37
48 1
September 29, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to
Thomas Verstraeten and Piotr Kramarz Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
49 1
October 16, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and response Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
50 1
October 17, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,
Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette
Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
51 2
October 17, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,
Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette
Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 15 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 16 of 37
52 3
October 23, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,
Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette
Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
53 22
October 23, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,
Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette
Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript; attachment containing Phil Rhodes'
comments on draft
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
54 7
October 24, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,
Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette
Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
55 2
October 22, 2003 email from Robert Davis to Frank
Destefano, Tracy Lieu, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay,
Robert Chen, and margarette Kolczak, containing Davis'
comments on draft, and Frank Destefano's October 23
response
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 16 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 17 of 37
56 8
October 29, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,
Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette
Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal
Manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
57 1
November 7, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and Robert Chen and reply Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
58 4
November 2003 emails between Frank Destefano, Bob
Davis, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding publication of
tetanus immunity paper; October 15, 2003 email
correspondence with Morag Menzies regarding
publication
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
possible publication of a manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
59 4
November 2003 emails between Frank Destefano, Bob
Davis, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding publication of
tetanus immunity paper; October 15, 2003 email
correspondence with Morag Menzies regarding
publication
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
possible publication of a manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 17 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 18 of 37
60 3
December 17, 2003 email forwarding letter with
comments on "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccines" article; December 18, 2003 email from Frank
Destefano forwarding letter to Robert Chen, Phillip
Rhodes, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu,
Steve Black, Henry Shinefield, and William Thompson Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to a letter to the editor. The original email,
containing the letter to the editor, was released during
preparation of this index.
61 5
December 18, 2003 email chain between Frank
Destefano forwarding letter to Robert Chen, Phillip
Rhodes, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu,
Steve Black, Henry Shinefield, and William Thompson
discussing response to December 17, 2003 letter Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to a letter to the editor. The original email,
containing the letter to the editor, was released during
preparation of this index.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 18 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 19 of 37
62 1
February 10, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and others regarding
Varicella-asthma article, and response from Frank
Destefano Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript.
63 2
December 31, 2003 email containing reviewer's
comments on Tetanus immunity manuscript; and
January 5, 2004, emails between Thomas Verstraeten,
Frank Destefano, and Bob Davis discussing same
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reveiwer comments on a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript.
This document also consists of reviewer comments, which are
used by HHS to make edits to draft manuscripts and evaluate
whether to seek publication of a manuscript.
64 6
February 23, 2004 email containing comments on
"Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" and
discussion among Frank Destefano, Thomas
Verstraeten, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Robert Davis,
and others, regarding response to a letter to the editor.
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to a letter to the editor. The original email,
containing the letter to the editor, was released during
preparation of this index.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 19 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 20 of 37
65 1
March 15, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and
katrin@bellsouth.net forwarding job posting, response
from Frank Destefano. Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information and a personal response to
a job posting. Disclosure of this information would constitute
an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
66 7
December 17, 2003 email forwarding letter with
comments on "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccines" article; December 18, 2003 email from Frank
Destefano forwarding letter to Robert Chen, Phillip
Rhodes, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu,
Steve Black, Henry Shinefield, and William Thompson;
and resulting conversation regarding same Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to a letter to the editor. The original email,
containing the letter to the editor, was released during
preparation of this index.
67 1
February 6, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to Gina
Mootrey and Robert Chen Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 20 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 21 of 37
68 5
February 23, 2004 email containing comments on
"Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" and
discussion among Frank Destefano, Tom Verstraeten,
Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Robert Davis, and others,
regarding response to comments Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to a letter to the editor. The original email,
containing the letter to the editor, was released during
preparation of this index.
69 1
February 27, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and Tracey Lieu, and
response from Frank Destefano, regarding
pharmacoepidemiology conference Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof. The remainder of this document was
released during preparation of this index.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 21 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 22 of 37
70 6
February 23, 2004 email containing comments on
"Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" and
discussion among Frank Destefano, Thomas
Verstraeten, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Robert Davis,
and others, regarding response to comments Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to a letter to the editor. The original email,
containing the letter to the editor, was released during
preparation of this index.
71 1
March 30, 2004 email from Pediatrics P3Rs to Frank
Destefano regarding reviewer comments on "Safety of
Thimerosal Containing Vaccines" and March 31, 2004
email forwarding email to Robert Chen, Phillip Rhodes,
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve
Black, and Henry Shinefield Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof. The remainder of this document was
released during preparation of this index.
72 1
March 30, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and Robert Chen regarding letter to the
editor; response from Frank Destefano Released in full
This document was originally withheld, but was released in full
during preparation of this index.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 22 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 23 of 37
73 1
October 13, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to
William Thompson, James Baggs, Eric Weintraub, and
Thomas Verstraeten regarding publication options Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof. The remainder of this document was
released during preparation of this index.
74 1
October 10, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and Robert Davis, and October 13,
2004 response, regarding publication of Tetanus articles
and Destefano's comments thereof
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
potential publication of a draft manuscript and proposed edits
to the draft. There was no reasonably segregable, non-
exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
75 2
October 22, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to
Thomas Verstraeten discussing IOM meeting, data from
VSD studies, and thimerosal manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
presentation on the "VSD studies." There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
76 8
Article attached to Document 75: "Quality Assessments
of HMO Diagnosis Databases Used to Monitor
Childhood Vaccine Safety," J. Mullooly, et al., Methods
Inf Med; 43: 163-70
Entire
Document
Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to
the Copyright Act.
77 6
Article attached to Document 76: "Risk of Anaphylaxis
After Vaccination of Children and Adolescents," Kari
Bohlke, et al, Pediatrics Vol. 112, No. 4, October 2003.
Entire
Document
Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to
the Copyright Act.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 23 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 24 of 37
78 2
October 25, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Pioter Kramars and others
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. This document is
personal correspondence regarding travel plans and
attendance at a conference. Disclosure of this information
would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.
Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing
about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component
thereof. There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt
information in this document, because any non-exempt
information would leave only meaningless words and phrases.
79 2
December 22, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and December 23 response regarding
vaccine study, data, and publication status
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing the
analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential
publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
80 2
October 2004 and February 2005 emails regarding
publication of tetanus manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
proposed edits to a draft manuscript and potential publication
of said manuscript. There was no reasonably segregable, non-
exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 24 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 25 of 37
81 1
February 17, 2005 email from Thomas Verstraeten to
Frank Destefano and Miles Braun, and Frank Destefano's
February 18, 2005 response, regarding workshop on
data mining Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
82 1
February 18, 2005 email from Frank Destefano to John
Iskander forwarding Thomas Verstraeten's February 17,
2005 email to Frank Destefano and Miles Braun
regarding workshop on data mining Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
83 2
February 18, 2005 emails between Frank Destefano and
John Iskander regarding attending data mining
workshop Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
84 2
February 18, 2005 emails between Frank Destefano,
John Iskander, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding
attending data mining workshop Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 25 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 26 of 37
85 2
February 2005 emails between Frank Destefano, John
Iskander, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding attending
data mining workshop Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
86 2
March 2005 emails regarding Vaccine Data Mining
Workshop Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
87 2
April 25 and 26, 2005 emails between Thomas
Verstraeten and Frank Destefano regarding job vacancy
and tetanus manuscript Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information and comments about
personal life. Disclosure of this information would constitute
an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is an internal HHS communication with a
follow up question regarding the tetanus manuscript
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 26 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 27 of 37
88 2
April 26, 2005 email forwarding Thomas Verstraeten's
email regarding a job vacancy Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information and comments about
personal life. Disclosure of this information would constitute
an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
89 1
April 22, 2005 email from Miguel Herman to Frank
Destefano's April 26, 2005 response regarding
publication of tetanus manuscript Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is information about an outside individual's
academic endeavors and grant application. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof. This document was originally
withheld in its entirety, but a portion was released during
preparation of this index.
90 1
April 22, 2005 email from Miguel Herman to Frank
Destefano's April 26, 2005 response regarding
publication of tetanus manuscript, and response Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is information about an outside individual's
academic endeavors and grant application. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof. A portion of this document was
released during preparation of this index.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 27 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 28 of 37
91 4
April 2005 chain of emails between Thomas Verstraeten
and Frank Destefano regarding job vacancy, tetanus
manuscript, and ISPE board Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information, comments about personal
life, and comments about an upcoming election. Disclosure of
this information would constitute an invasion of privacy of
these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information
would reveal nothing about the operations or activities of
HHS, or any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
proposed assistance of another researcher.
92 2
April 28, 2005 chain of emails discussing request from
Miguel Hernan Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information, comments about personal
life, and comments about an upcoming election. Disclosure of
this information would constitute an invasion of privacy of
these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information
would reveal nothing about the operations or activities of
HHS, or any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
response to the original email.
93 2 April 29, 2005 emails regarding data mining workshop Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 28 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 29 of 37
94 2
May 2005 email chain between Frank Destefano,
Thomas Verstraeten, and Robert Davis regarding
publication of tetanus manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is an internal HHS communication with a
discussion of the publication of, and edits to, the tetanus
manuscript. There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt
information in this document, because any non-exempt
information would leave only meaningless words and phrases.
95 1
June 27, 2005 email from Thomas Verstraeten to Robert
Davis and Frank Destefano regarding ISPE board
elections Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
96 3
July 2005 email chain between Frank Destefano,
Thomas Verstraeten, and Robert Chen regarding "VSD
extrended FU for intussuception" Redactions
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is contact information. Disclosure of this
information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these
individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would
reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or
any component thereof.
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
redacted information is an internal HHS communication with
discussion of papers on RV and intussception, and possible
next course of action.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 29 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 30 of 37
97 55
October 1, 203 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas
Verstraeten forwarding draft manuscript: "Safety of
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of
Computerized Health Maintenance Organization
Databases;" document includes attachment
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This
document is a draft manuscript. A draft is the author's
recommendation of what the final document should say.
There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information
in this document, because any non-exempt information would
leave only meaningless words and phrases. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
98 1
May 20, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert
Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen,
Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy
Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on Thimerosal
Manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
99 2
May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,
Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert
Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and
Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal
screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
100 1
May 20, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert
Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen,
Phillip Rhodes, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 30 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 31 of 37
101 1
May 20, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert
Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen,
Phillip Rhodes, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
102 2
May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,
Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert
Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and
Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal
screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
103 1
May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,
Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert
Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and
Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal
screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
104 2
May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,
Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert
Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and
Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal
screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 31 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 32 of 37
105 2
May 20 and 21, 2003 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip
Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
106 2
May 20 and 21, 2003 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip
Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
107 3
May 20 and 21, 2003 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip
Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
108 2
May 20, 21, and 22, 2003 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip
Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 32 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 33 of 37
109 1
May 22, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Phillip Rhodes, and Robert
Chen including a draft paragraph for the thimerosal
paper
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
110 2
May 20, 21, and 22, 2003 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip
Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
111 2
May 20, 21, and 22, 2003 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip
Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer
comments on thimerosal screening analysis
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
112 2
June 3, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to Frank
Destefano containing edits to manuscript, June 13, 2003
response
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
proposed edits to a draft manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 33 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 34 of 37
113 2
June 2, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to Frank
Destefano containing edits to manuscript, June 13, 2003
response, and resulting correspondence
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
proposed edits to a draft manuscript. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
114 55 56
June 30, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Phillip
Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert
Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black, and Henry Shinefield,
transmitting letter to Pediatrics Editorial Office
addressing reviewer comments and attaching draft
manuscript
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This
document is a draft manuscript. A draft is the author's
recommendation of what the final document should say.
There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information
in this document, because any non-exempt information would
leave only meaningless words and phrases. There was no
reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this
document, because any non-exempt information would leave
only meaningless words and phrases.
115 3
November 20, 2003 chain of emails among Frank
Destefano, Robert Chen, Walter Orenstein, Melinda
Wharton, Roger Bernier, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert
Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black, and Henry Shinefield
discussing erratum submitted to Pediatrics; enclosing
draft errata
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
potential erratum to accompany a manuscript and includes a
draft erratum. A draft is the author's recommendation of what
the final document should say. There was no reasonably
segregable, non-exempt information in this document,
because any non-exempt information would leave only
meaningless words and phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 34 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 35 of 37
116 2
November 21, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Walt
Orenstein and Robert Chen regarding erratum to
Pediatrics; draft erratum attached
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing a
potential erratum to accompany a manuscript. This document
also contains a draft erratum. A draft is the author's
recommendation of what the final document should say.
There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information
in this document, because any non-exempt information would
leave only meaningless words and phrases.
117 10
February and March 2004 email chain amend Frank
Destefano, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black,
Henry Shinefield, Robert Bernier, and Brooke Barry,
discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal article and
draft response
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication
discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.
A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final
document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,
non-exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
118 11
January 2004 chain of emails among Frank Destefano,
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and Phillip Rhodes
discussing reviewer comments and attaching draft
response
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication
discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.
A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final
document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,
non-exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 35 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 36 of 37
119 8
February and March 2004 email chain among Frank
Destefano, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black,
Henry Shinefield, Rober Bernier, and Brooke Barry,
discussing reviewer comments on Thimerosal
Manuscript and draft response
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication
discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.
A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final
document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,
non-exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
120 8
February and March 2004 email chain amend Frank
Destefano, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas
Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black,
Henry Shinefield, Rober Bernier, and Brooke Barry,
discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal article and
draft response
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication
discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.
A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final
document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,
non-exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
121 3
March 24, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to Robert
Chen, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Steve Black,
Tracy Lieu, Phillip Rhodes, Susan Chu, and Brooke Barry,
forwarding draft response to reviewer comments
Entire
Document
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The
document is an internal HHS communication discussing
reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication
discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.
A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final
document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,
non-exempt information in this document, because any non-
exempt information would leave only meaningless words and
phrases.
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 36 of 37
Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 37 of 37
Document Pages Description
Nature of
Withholding Basis for Withholding
122 1
February 13, 2004 letter from Larry K. Pickering, M.D.,
to Sarah Parker Redaction
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is the last name and contact information of an
individual. Disclosure of this information would constitute an
invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
123 2
January 15, 2004 letter from Larry K. Pickering, M.D., to
Sarah Parker Redaction
5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted
information is the personal contact information of Larry
Pickering. Disclosure of this information would constitute an
invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the
withheld information would reveal nothing about the
operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.
Request 05-674
Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 37 of 37