peta lawsuit update and requests for information

114 messages over 55 days, 2021-12-01 – 2022-01-26.

2021-12-01 11:43 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.11

Hi everyone, I had a call with DOJ yesterday and am writing to answer questions from the last call, provide an update as to next steps and ask for some additional information. I thought it would be helpful to have this all in writing, but if you would like to have a call to discuss please let me know. The DOJ unfortunately needs the additional information ASAP, so if you could provide it by tomorrow that would be very helpful. As a first matter, we'd like to know who is the ultimate decision-maker for the team. There is a policy decision to be made, as described below, and we want to ensure the appropriate person is looped in and making the decision. Questions from Last Call 1. Should NIH should stop its blocking non-viewpoint neutral keywords? NIH should stop blocking the following keywords immediately: Facebook Peta Petalatino Instagram Peta When this is done, please let me know so I can give the date these keywords were no longer blocked to the DOJ. In terms of the following Instagram filters: #stopanimaltesting #stoptesting #stoptestingonanimals The DOJ is leaving this as a policy decision for NIH. The ideal solution would be for NIH to still achieve its desired goals without having these one-sided keywords blocked. For example, if the hashtag #testing is blocked, will that also block 0 be blocked for it to I know it was after the lawsuit was Guidelines in January 2015. #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? Or, does the entire phrase need to be blocked for it to work? I do see "testing" is a manual filter, but not hashtag #testing- does this make a difference? The options are: 1. Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work, 2. Keep the above filters but add a hashtag representing the pro-animal testing side to achieve neutrality, if there are any commonly used proanimal testing words or hashtags such as #keepanimaltesting, 3. Remove the filters without additional changes if it isn't making much of a difference, or 4. Keep the filters without additional changes if options #1 and #2 are not feasible and these filters are key to stopping harassment from PETA. If you are considering option #4, while a court may find that these keywords are not viewpoint neutral, the DOJ said the worst that would happen is a court would order NIH to stop filtering these terms as part of its ruling. But, ideally we'd prefer options #1-3 for a stronger case. 2. What are the ramifications if NIH does not win the lawsuit? What does that mean NIH will and will not be able to moderate on its Facebook and Instagram pages? The DOJ explained that if NIH fully loses the case and the judge deems NIH's Facebook and Instagram as public forums and grants an injunction, NIH would still be able to moderate the platforms for the categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, incitement to induce imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes. The DOJ did say that the NIH would not be able to moderate offtopic comments if the injunction is granted. If the NIH only lost on the viewpoint discrimination argument, but the platforms were not viewed as public forums, the DOJ's preliminary opinion is that the comment guidelines would only need a slight modification to clarify that animal testing as a general topic is off limits. Overall, the DOJ's opinion is that even if NIH fully lost the lawsuit, NIH would not be in a worse position than if it did not fight the lawsuit. Essentially, losing the lawsuit would only allow NIH to moderate the areas of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and to not have any discretion outside of these areas. It appears that NIH not fighting the lawsuit and removing all animal- related filters would have a similar effect, although by not being under a court order NIH would still have discretion to moderate as it pleases, which would include off topic comments. However, if NIH removes all of the animal related filters to get PETA to drop the lawsuit and then manually moderates PETA's off topic comments, PETA may file another lawsuit about the manual moderation so it may not get us very far. Please let us know your thoughts on if you are in agreement with the DOJ's assessment that losing the case versus not fighting it would have a similar effect. Next Steps and Additional Requests for Information The DOJ and PETA have agreed to file a stipulation of facts to avoid discovery, and then the briefs for summary judgement will be drafted based on these facts. Summary judgement means the judge will make a decision on the injunction based on the briefs without holding a full trial. The deadline for the stipulation of facts is next Wednesday, December 8th but this may be pushed back a few days. The DOJ seeks some additional information from the NIH to fill in the facts, outlined below: 1. Manual Moderation of Comments a. What was the exact date NIH stopped manually moderating comments? I know it was after the lawsuit was filed, but can you give us the date? b. When NIH was manually moderating comments, what was the frequency? For example, was the manual hiding of comments weekly? daily? every 4 hours Monday-Friday? constantly? 2. Comment Guidelines- In its complaint, PETA states NIH's Facebook was created on October 14, 2008 (and Instagram created in 2018). From our emails, you stated OGC approved the Comment Guidelines in January 2015. (C) Polimeni, (NIH/OD) a. Do you know the exact date the Comment Guidelines become in effect? b. Before these Comment Guidelines, were any other comment policy or guidelines in place from 2008-2015 for Facebook commenting? 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are looking for some extreme examples of PETA's comments where they go over the top to highlight 2-3
2021-12-01 11:43 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.67

Hi everyone, I had a call with DOJ yesterday and am writing to answer questions from the last call, provide an update as to next steps and ask for some additional information. I thought it would be helpful to have this all in writing, but if you would like to have a call to discuss please let me know. The DOJ unfortunately needs the additional information ASAP, so if you could provide it by tomorrow that would be very helpful. As a first matter, we'd like to know who is the ultimate decision-maker for the team. There is a policy decision to be made, as described below, and we want to ensure the appropriate person is looped in and making the decision. Questions from Last Call 1. Should NIH should stop its blocking non-viewpoint neutral keywords? NIH should stop blocking the following keywords immediately: Facebook Peta Petalatino Instagram Peta When this is done, please let me know so I can give the date these keywords were no longer blocked to the DOJ. In terms of the following Instagram filters: #stopanimaltesting #stoptesting #stoptestingonanimals The DOJ is leaving this as a policy decision for NIH. The ideal solution would be for NIH to still achieve its desired goals without having these one-sided keywords blocked. For example, if the hashtag #testing is blocked, will that also block #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? Or, does the entire phrase need to be blocked for it to work? I do see "testing" is a manual filter, but not hashtag #testing- does this make a difference? I know it was after the lawsuit was >in January 2015. The options are: 1. Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work, 2. Keep the above filters but add a hashtag representing the pro-animal testing side to achieve neutrality, if there are any commonly used proanimal testing words or hashtags such as #keepanimaltesting, 3. Remove the filters without additional changes if it isn't making much of a difference, or 4. Keep the filters without additional changes if options #1 and #2 are not feasible and these filters are key to stopping harassment from PETA. If you are considering option #4, while a court may find that these keywords are not viewpoint neutral, the DOJ said the worst that would happen is a court would order NIH to stop filtering these terms as part of its ruling. But, ideally we'd prefer options #1-3 for a stronger case. 2. What are the ramifications if NIH does not win the lawsuit? What does that mean NIH will and will not be able to moderate on its Facebook and Instagram pages? The DOJ explained that if NIH fully loses the case and the judge deems NIH's Facebook and Instagram as public forums and grants an injunction, NIH would still be able to moderate the platforms for the categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, incitement to induce imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes. The DOJ did say that the NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic comments if the injunction is granted. If the NIH only lost on the viewpoint discrimination argument, but the platforms were not viewed as public forums, the DOJ's preliminary opinion is that the comment guidelines would only need a slight modification to clarify that animal testing as a general topic is off limits. Overall, the DOJ's opinion is that even if NIH fully lost the lawsuit, NIH would not be in a worse position than if it did not fight the lawsuit. Essentially, losing the lawsuit would only allow NIH to moderate the areas of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and to not have any discretion outside of these areas. It appears that NIH not fighting the lawsuit and removing all animal- related filters would have a similar effect, although by not being under a court order NIH would still have discretion to moderate as it pleases, which would include off topic comments. However, if NIH removes all of the animal related filters to get PETA to drop the lawsuit and then manually moderates PETA's off topic comments, PETA may file another lawsuit about the manual moderation so it may not get us very far. Please let us know your thoughts on if you are in agreement with the DOJ's assessment that losing the case versus not fighting it would have a similar effect. Next Steps and Additional Requests for Information The DOJ and PETA have agreed to file a stipulation of facts to avoid discovery, and then the briefs for summary judgement will be drafted based on these facts. Summary judgement means the judge will make a decision on the injunction based on the briefs without holding a full trial. The deadline for the stipulation of facts is next Wednesday, December 8th but this may be pushed back a few days. The DOJ seeks some additional information from the NIH to fill in the facts, outlined below: 1. Manual Moderation of Comments a. What was the exact date NIH stopped manually moderating comments? I know it was after the lawsuit was filed, but can you give us the date? b. When NIH was manually moderating comments, what was the frequency? For example, was the manual hiding of comments weekly? daily? every 4 hours Monday-Friday? constantly? 2. Comment Guidelines- In its complaint, PETA states NIH's Facebook was created on October 14, 2008 (and Instagram created in 2018). From our emails, you stated OGC approved the Comment Guidelines in January 2015. a. Do you know the exact date the Comment Guidelines become in effect? b. Before these Comment Guidelines, were any other comment policy or guidelines in place from 2008-2015 for Facebook commenting? I Polimeni, i] (NIH/OD) 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are
2021-12-01 11:43 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.90

Hi everyone, I had a call with DOJ yesterday and am writing to answer questions from the last call, provide an update as to next steps and ask for some additional information. I thought it would be helpful to have this all in writing, but if you would like to have a call to discuss please let me know. The DOJ unfortunately needs the additional information ASAP, so if you could provide it by tomorrow that would be very helpful. As a first matter, we'd like to know who is the ultimate decision-maker for the team. There is a policy decision to be made, as described below, and we want to ensure the appropriate person is looped in and making the decision. Questions from Last Call 1. Should NIH should stop its blocking non-viewpoint neutral keywords? NIH should stop blocking the following keywords immediately: Facebook Peta Petalatino Instagram Peta iieve its desired goals d, will that also block '0 be blocked for it to When this is done, please let me know so I can give the date these keywords were no longer blocked to the DOJ. In terms of the following Instagram filters: #stopanimaltesting #stoptesting #stoptestingonanimals The DOJ is leaving this as a policy decision for NIH. The ideal solution would be for NIH to still achieve its desired goals without having these one-sided keywords blocked. For example, if the hashtag #testing is blocked, will that also block #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? Or, does the entire phrase need to be blocked for it to work? I do see "testing" is a manual filter, but not hashtag #testing- does this make a difference? The options are: 1. Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work, 2. Keep the above filters but add a hashtag representing the pro-animal testing side to achieve neutrality, if there are any commonly used proanimal testing words or hashtags such as #keepanimaltesting, 3. Remove the filters without additional changes if it isn't making much of a difference, or 4. Keep the filters without additional changes if options #1 and #2 are not feasible and these filters are key to stopping harassment from PETA. If you are considering option #4, while a court may find that these keywords are not viewpoint neutral, the DOJ said the worst that would happen is a court would order NIH to stop filtering these terms as part of its ruling. But, ideally we'd prefer options #1-3 for a stronger case. 2. What are the ramifications if NIH does not win the lawsuit? What does that mean NIH will and will not be able to moderate on its Facebook and Instagram pages? The DOJ explained that if NIH fully loses the case and the judge deems NIH's Facebook and Instagram as public forums and grants an injunction, NIH would still be able to moderate the platforms for the categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, incitement to induce imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes. The DOJ did say that the NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic comments if the injunction is granted. If the NIH only lost on the viewpoint discrimination argument, but the platforms were not viewed as public forums, the DOJ's preliminary opinion is that the comment guidelines would only need a slight modification to clarify that animal testing as a general topic is off limits. Overall, the DOJ's opinion is that even if NIH fully lost the lawsuit, NIH would not be in a worse position than if it did not fight the lawsuit. Essentially, losing the lawsuit would only allow NIH to moderate the areas of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and to not have any discretion outside of these areas. It appears that NIH not fighting the lawsuit and removing all animal- related filters would have a similar effect, although by not being under a court order NIH would still have discretion to moderate as it pleases, which would include off topic comments. However, if NIH removes all of the animal related filters to get PETA to drop the lawsuit and then manually moderates PETA's off topic comments, PETA may file another lawsuit about the manual moderation so it may not get us very far. Please let us know your thoughts on if you are in agreement with the DOJ's assessment that losing the case versus not fighting it would have a similar effect. Next Steps and Additional Requests for Information The DOJ and PETA have agreed to file a stipulation of facts to avoid discovery, and then the briefs for summary judgement will be drafted based on these facts. Summary judgement means the judge will make a decision on the injunction based on the briefs without holding a full trial. The deadline for the stipulation of facts is next Wednesday, December 8th but this may be pushed back a few days. The DOJ seeks some additional information from the NIH to fill in the facts, outlined below: 1. Manual Moderation of Comments a. What was the exact date NIH stopped manually moderating comments? I know it was after the lawsuit was filed, but can you give us the date? b. When NIH was manually moderating comments, what was the frequency? For example, was the manual hiding of comments weekly? daily? every 4 hours Monday-Friday? constantly? 2. Comment Guidelines- In its complaint, PETA states NIH's Facebook was created on October 14, 2008 (and Instagram created in 2018). From our emails, you stated OGC approved the Comment Guidelines in January 2015. a. Do you know the exact date the Comment Guidelines become in effect? b. Before these Comment Guidelines, were any other comment policy or guidelines in place from 2008-2015 for Facebook commenting? 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are
2021-12-01 11:43 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.113

Hi everyone, I had a call with DOJ yesterday and am writing to answer questions from the last call, provide an update as to next steps and ask for some additional information. I thought it would be helpful to have this all in writing, but if you would like to have a call to discuss please let me know. The DOJ unfortunately needs the additional information ASAP, so if you could provide it by tomorrow that would be very helpful. As a first matter, we'd like to know who is the ultimate decision-maker for the team. There is a policy decision to be made, as described below, and we want to ensure the appropriate person is looped in and making the decision. Questions from Last Call iieve its desired goals d, will that also block '0 be blocked for it to 1. Should NIH should stop its blocking non-viewpoint neutral keywords? NIH should stop blocking the following keywords immediately: Facebook Peta Petalatino Instagram Peta When this is done, please let me know so I can give the date these keywords were no longer blocked to the DOJ. In terms of the following Instagram filters: #stopanimaltesting #stoptesting #stoptestingonanimals The DOJ is leaving this as a policy decision for NIH. The ideal solution would be for NIH to still achieve its desired goals without having these one-sided keywords blocked. For example, if the hashtag #testing is blocked, will that also block #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? Or, does the entire phrase need to be blocked for it to work? I do see "testing" is a manual filter, but not hashtag #testing- does this make a difference? The options are: 1. Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work, 2. Keep the above filters but add a hashtag representing the pro-animal testing side to achieve neutrality, if there are any commonly used proanimal testing words or hashtags such as #keepanimaltesting, 3. Remove the filters without additional changes if it isn't making much of a difference, or 4. Keep the filters without additional changes if options #1 and #2 are not feasible and these filters are key to stopping harassment from PETA. If you are considering option #4, while a court may find that these keywords are not viewpoint neutral, the DOJ said the worst that would happen is a court would order NIH to stop filtering these terms as part of its ruling. But, ideally we'd prefer options #1-3 for a stronger case. 2. What are the ramifications if NIH does not win the lawsuit? What does that mean NIH will and will not be able to moderate on its Facebook and Instagram pages? The DOJ explained that if NIH fully loses the case and the judge deems NIH's Facebook and Instagram as public forums and grants an injunction, NIH would still be able to moderate the platforms for the categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, incitement to induce imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes. The DOJ did say that the NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic comments if the injunction is granted. If the NIH only lost on the viewpoint discrimination argument, but the platforms were not viewed as public forums, the DOJ's preliminary opinion is that the comment guidelines would only need a slight modification to clarify that animal testing as a general topic is off limits. Overall, the DOJ's opinion is that even if NIH fully lost the lawsuit, NIH would not be in a worse position than if it did not fight the lawsuit. Essentially, losing the lawsuit would only allow NIH to moderate the areas of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and to not have any discretion outside of these areas. It appears that NIH not fighting the lawsuit and removing all animal- related filters would have a similar effect, although by not being under a court order NIH would still have discretion to moderate as it pleases, which would include off topic comments. However, if NIH I know it was after the lawsuit was >in January 2015. discussed, irray. 1-2 examples with screenshots removes all of the animal related filters to get PETA to drop the lawsuit and then manually moderates PETA's off topic comments, PETA may file another lawsuit about the manual moderation so it may not get us very far. Please let us know your thoughts on if you are in agreement with the DOJ's assessment that losing the case versus not fighting it would have a similar effect. Next Steps and Additional Requests for Information The DOJ and PETA have agreed to file a stipulation of facts to avoid discovery, and then the briefs for summary judgement will be drafted based on these facts. Summary judgement means the judge will make a decision on the injunction based on the briefs without holding a full trial. The deadline for the stipulation of facts is next Wednesday, December 8th but this may be pushed back a few days. The DOJ seeks some additional information from the NIH to fill in the facts, outlined below: 1. Manual Moderation of Comments a. What was the exact date NIH stopped manually moderating comments? I know it was after the lawsuit was filed, but can you give us the date? b. When NIH was manually moderating comments, what was the frequency? For example, was the manual hiding of comments weekly? daily? every 4 hours Monday-Friday? constantly? 2. Comment Guidelines- In its complaint, PETA states NIH's Facebook was created on October 14, 2008 (and Instagram created in 2018). From our emails, you stated OGC approved the Comment Guidelines in January 2015. a. Do you know the exact date the Comment Guidelines become in effect? b. Before these Comment Guidelines, were any other comment policy or guidelines in place from 2008-2015 for Facebook commenting? 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are
2021-12-01 11:46 Amanda Fine open PDF p.66

; ieni, Lydia ) () <a > /OD) (€] Lankford, Thanks, Sarah! We'll take a look and try to get you answers. I'm out tomorrow and Friday, and we're handling the POTUS visit tomorrow, so we're completely underwater. Is there any possibility for us to get back to you by COB Monday? I know it's longer than ideal, but just want to make sure we are able to give this the attention it needs. Thanks! Amanda
2021-12-01 11:46 Amanda Fine open PDF p.90

Thanks, Sarah! We'll take a look and try to get you answers. I'm out tomorrow and Friday, and we're handling the POTUS visit tomorrow, so we're completely underwater. Is there any possibility for us to get back to you by COB Monday? I know it's longer than ideal, but just want to make sure we are able to give this the attention it needs. Thanks! Amanda
2021-12-01 11:46 Amanda Fine open PDF p.113

Thanks, Sarah! We'll take a look and try to get you answers. I'm out tomorrow and Friday, and we're handling the POTUS visit tomorrow, so we're completely underwater. Is there any possibility for us to get back to you by COB Monday? I know it's longer than ideal, but just want to make sure we are able to give this the attention it needs. Thanks! Amanda
2021-12-01 11:55 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.10

Hi Amanda, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-01 11:55 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.66

Hi Amanda, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-01 11:55 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.89

Hi Amanda, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney ) (e] <a ) (e) <a 00) (I > 00) I -- > 00) I eni, Lydia Lankford, ieni, Lydia Lankford, Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-01 11:55 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.112

Hi Amanda, 00) (I » 00) i ) > 00) eni, Lydia Lankford, ieni, Lydia Lankford, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-01 11:59 Amanda Fine open PDF p.10

Thanks Sarah! Much much appreciated.
2021-12-01 11:59 Amanda Fine open PDF p.66

Thanks Sarah! Much much appreciated.
2021-12-01 11:59 Amanda Fine open PDF p.89

Thanks Sarah! Much much appreciated.
2021-12-01 11:59 Amanda Fine open PDF p.112

Thanks Sarah! Much much appreciated.
2021-12-02 12:42 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.9

Hi everyone, Plaintffs agreed to an extension, so COB Monday works well for getting the additional information back to us. Thanks so much, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA 6 AM ) Ce] <a ) Ce] <a oo) (I > 00) ae pe > 00) 00) (I eni, Lydia Lankford, eni, Lydia Lankford, eni, Lydia Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-02 12:42 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.65

Hi everyone, Plaintffs agreed to an extension, so COB Monday works well for getting the additional information back to us. Thanks so much, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney /OD) [E] ~ eni, Lydia > ) (e] <a /OD) [€] Lankford, , ieni, Lydia ) > /OD) [€] Lankford, /OD) [E] ~ eni, Lydia > ) (e] <a /OD) [E] Lankford, Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-02 12:42 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.89

Hi everyone, Plaintffs agreed to an extension, so COB Monday works well for getting the additional information back to us. Thanks so much, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-02 12:42 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.112

Hi everyone, Plaintffs agreed to an extension, so COB Monday works well for getting the additional information back to us. Thanks so much, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-03 12:36 Anna Kern open PDF p.9

Hi Sarah, Thanks so much for the extension. We did want to update and let you know that we have removed the filters you mentioned below on Facebook and Instagram today, so you can give the date of 12/3/21 to DOJ as when the filters were removed. Thanks! Anna
2021-12-03 12:36 Anna Kern open PDF p.65

Hi Sarah, Thanks so much for the extension. We did want to update and let you know that we have removed the filters you mentioned below on Facebook and Instagram today, so you can give the date of 12/3/21 to DOJ as when the filters were removed. Thanks! Anna
2021-12-03 12:36 Anna Kern open PDF p.88

Hi Sarah, Thanks so much for the extension. We did want to update and let you know that we have removed the filters you mentioned below on Facebook and Instagram today, so you can give the date of 12/3/21 to DOJ as when the filters were removed. Thanks! Anna ) (e) <a > 00) (I ) 00) () i > 00) ieni, Lydia Lankford, eni, Lydia Lankford, ieni, Lydia Lankford,
2021-12-03 12:36 Anna Kern open PDF p.111

Hi Sarah, » ) 00) () 00) (] a 00) () i > 00) ieni, Lydia Lankford, eni, Lydia Lankford, ieni, Lydia Lankford, Thanks so much for the extension. We did want to update and let you know that we have removed the filters you mentioned below on Facebook and Instagram today, so you can give the date of 12/3/21 to DOJ as when the filters were removed. Thanks! Anna
2021-12-03 13:10 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.88

Hi Anna, Thanks so much for the update. To clarify, what was your group's decision on the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting; #stoptesting; and #stoptestingonanimals? If you don't have a decision on those filters yet, that is fine. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-03 13:10 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.111

Hi Anna, Thanks so much for the update. To clarify, what was your group's decision on the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting; #stoptesting; and #stoptestingonanimals? If you don't have a decision on those filters yet, that is fine. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-03 13:14 Anna Kern open PDF p.8

Hi Sarah, We don't have a decision on those quite yet, we just removed "peta" and "petalatino" for now. Hoping to have a decision on Monday. Thanks! Anna
2021-12-03 13:14 Anna Kern open PDF p.64

Hi Sarah, We don't have a decision on those quite yet, we just removed "peta" and "petalatino" for now. Hoping to have a decision on Monday. Thanks! Anna
2021-12-03 13:14 Anna Kern open PDF p.111

Hi Sarah, We don't have a decision on those quite yet, we just removed "peta" and "petalatino" for now. Hoping to have a decision on Monday. Thanks! Anna
2021-12-03 13:16 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.8

Great, thanks so much Anna! Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch 00 (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-03 13:16 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.64

Great, thanks so much Anna! Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-03 13:16 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.87

Great, thanks so much Anna! Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-03 13:16 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.110

Great, thanks so much Anna! Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such oo) (¢] <n > oe /OD) [.] : 00) oo) (¢] <n > oe Lankford, Lankford, Lankford, information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 18:31 Anna Kern open PDF p.7

Hi Sarah, Since there were quite a few questions and requests for screenshots, we have compiled our responses in the attached word doc. Our answers to your questions are highlighted in yellow. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the responses. We have two main questions for you and DOJ: 1. Can the chief policy maker just be NIH or do we have to name a specific person? We'd prefer to not name a specific person given the history of PETA sharing people's personal information with their supporters. OGC- David Lankford and I- would like to know the ultimate NIH decision-maker for this lawsuit. The person's name will not be given to Plaintiffs and is for our own internal coordination purposes only. 00) (] an > * -- oo) (¢] <n > oe 1/0D) [] aa a > 1/00) (] Lankford, Lankford, Lankford, 2. Our desired outcome is to still be able to moderate comments, specifically those comments that are off topic to the posts. Based on this desired outcome, which path would OGC recommend we take with this lawsuit? I will get back to you on this shortly after further discussion. Thank you, Anna
2021-12-06 18:31 Anna Kern open PDF p.63

Hi Sarah, Since there were quite a few questions and requests for screenshots, we have compiled our responses in the attached word doc. Our answers to your questions are highlighted in yellow. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the responses. We have two main questions for you and DOJ: 1. Can the chief policy maker just be NIH or do we have to name a specific person? We'd prefer to not name a specific person given the history of PETA sharing people's personal information with their supporters. OGC- David Lankford and I- would like to know the ultimate NIH decision-maker for this lawsuit. The person's name will not be given to Plaintiffs and is for our own internal coordination purposes only. OD) [E] ce : 00) () oo) I) <a > ee OD) [E] re : 00) Lankford, Lankford, Lankford, 2. Our desired outcome is to still be able to moderate comments, specifically those comments that are off topic to the posts. Based on this desired outcome, which path would OGC recommend we take with this lawsuit? I will get back to you on this shortly after further discussion. Thank you, Anna
2021-12-06 18:31 Anna Kern open PDF p.110

Hi Sarah, Since there were quite a few questions and requests for screenshots, we have compiled our responses in the attached word doc. Our answers to your questions are highlighted in yellow. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the responses. We have two main questions for you and DOJ: 1. Can the chief policy maker just be NIH or do we have to name a specific person? We'd prefer to not name a specific person given the history of PETA sharing people's personal information with their supporters. OGC- David Lankford and I- would like to know the ultimate NIH decision-maker for this lawsuit. The person's name will not be given to Plaintiffs and is for our own internal coordination purposes only. 2. Our desired outcome is to still be able to moderate comments, specifically those comments that are off topic to the posts. Based on this desired outcome, which path would OGC recommend we take with this lawsuit? I will get back to you on this shortly after further discussion. Thank you, Anna
2021-12-06 19:07 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.6

Hi Anna and team, Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful. I will work with DOJ on incorporating this information into the facts. Please see my responses below in red. After all your work, I already have a request for follow-up. The draft stipulation of facts we received from the Plaintiffs included a number of examples of specific comments that were hidden from NIH's Facebook and Instagram. They attribute these hidden comments to NIH's Facebook and Instagram filter lists. Interestingly, we have discovered that the HHS Facebook comments plaintiffs mention were likely filtered through Facebook's own spam filter, as HHS does not filter "monkey" from its Facebook comments (as a reminder, Plaintiffs only claimed HHS' Facebook blocked the word monkey and only gave a few examples). Due to this, DOJ is currently discussing removing HHS from the lawsuit with Plaintiffs, so then the only defendant would be NIH. Therefore, we'd like to confirm that these hidden comments were actually based on NIH's own filters and not some other mechanism. I have attached a document of all of the examples Plaintiffs included. Could you please investigate the following: /OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda 1. Check each example on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent possible, to confirm that NIH's filters did indeed hide these comments. I reviewed all of the examples myself against the Facebook/Instagram filter lists to ensure at least one word in each example is on the filter lists, and inserted a comment where there are discrepancies. 2. Where I inserted a comment where there are discrepancies, please respond to the comments to let me know whether you think the filters did capture these terms, whether they were manually hidden by NIH or whether you think Facebook or Instagram's own filters may have been in effect. As far as timing, the DOJ wants to submit our edits to the proposed stipulation of facts on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest to allow time for some back and forth with the plaintiffs before the deadline. Please let me know if you can get back to me on this by COB tomorrow. I apologize for the continued short turn around time. The stipulation is likely our only opportunity to get the facts in the record. I'd also like to schedule a quick call with the key decision maker and the person who has the most comprehensive knowledge of the facts to review the facts presented and ensure there are no other key facts that might be useful to include. I can provide a copy of the draft fact stipulation in advance, or review a summary of the facts with you during the call. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 19:07 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.62

Hi Anna and team, Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful. I will work with DOJ on incorporating this information into the facts. Please see my responses below in red. After all your work, I already have a request for follow-up. The draft stipulation of facts we received from the Plaintiffs included a number of examples of specific comments that were hidden from NIH's Facebook and Instagram. They attribute these hidden comments to NIH's Facebook and Instagram filter lists. Interestingly, we have discovered that the HHS Facebook comments plaintiffs mention were likely filtered through Facebook's own spam filter, as HHS does not filter "monkey" from its Facebook comments (as a reminder, Plaintiffs only claimed HHS' Facebook blocked the word monkey and only gave a few examples). Due to this, DOJ is currently discussing removing HHS from the lawsuit with Plaintiffs, so then the only defendant would be NIH. Therefore, we'd like to confirm that these hidden comments were actually based on NIH's own filters and not some other mechanism. OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda I have attached a document of all of the examples Plaintiffs included. Could you please investigate the following: 1. Check each example on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent possible, to confirm that NIH's filters did indeed hide these comments. I reviewed all of the examples myself against the Facebook/Instagram filter lists to ensure at least one word in each example is on the filter lists, and inserted a comment where there are discrepancies. 2. Where I inserted a comment where there are discrepancies, please respond to the comments to let me know whether you think the filters did capture these terms, whether they were manually hidden by NIH or whether you think Facebook or Instagram's own filters may have been in effect. As far as timing, the DOJ wants to submit our edits to the proposed stipulation of facts on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest to allow time for some back and forth with the plaintiffs before the deadline. Please let me know if you can get back to me on this by COB tomorrow. I apologize for the continued short turn around time. The stipulation is likely our only opportunity to get the facts in the record. I'd also like to schedule a quick call with the key decision maker and the person who has the most comprehensive knowledge of the facts to review the facts presented and ensure there are no other key facts that might be useful to include. I can provide a copy of the draft fact stipulation in advance, or review a summary of the facts with you during the call. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 19:07 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.109

Hi Anna and team, Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful. I will work with DOJ on incorporating this information into the facts. Please see my responses below in red. After all your work, I already have a request for follow-up. The draft stipulation of facts we received from the Plaintiffs included a number of examples of specific comments that were hidden from NIH's Facebook and Instagram. They attribute these hidden comments to NIH's Facebook and Instagram filter lists. Interestingly, we have discovered that the HHS Facebook comments plaintiffs mention were likely filtered through Facebook's own spam filter, as HHS does not filter "monkey" from its Facebook comments (as a reminder, Plaintiffs only claimed HHS' Facebook blocked the word monkey and only gave a few examples). Due to this, DOJ is currently discussing removing HHS from the lawsuit with Plaintiffs, so then the only defendant would be NIH. Therefore, we'd like to confirm that these hidden comments were actually based on NIH's own filters and not some other mechanism. I have attached a document of all of the examples Plaintiffs included. Could you please investigate the following: 1. Check each example on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent possible, to confirm that NIH's filters did indeed hide these comments. I reviewed all of the examples myself against the Facebook/Instagram filter lists to ensure at least one word in each example is on the filter lists, and inserted a comment where there are discrepancies. 2. Where I inserted a comment where there are discrepancies, please respond to the comments to let me know whether you think the filters did capture these terms, whether they were manually hidden by NIH or whether you think Facebook or Instagram's own filters may have been in effect. As far as timing, the DOJ wants to submit our edits to the proposed stipulation of facts on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest to allow time for some back and forth with the plaintiffs before the deadline. Please let me know if you can get back to me on this by COB tomorrow. I apologize for the continued short turn around time. The stipulation is likely our only opportunity to get the facts in the record. I'd also like to schedule a quick call with the key decision maker and the person who has the most comprehensive knowledge of the facts to review the facts presented and ensure there are no other key facts that might be useful to include. I can provide a copy of the draft fact stipulation in advance, or review a summary of the facts with you during the call. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda ob) [E] <t . > /OD) [€] Lankford, This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 21:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.5

Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. /OD) [E] _ Lankford, ne, Amanda > Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 21:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.61

Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media /OD) a a Lankford, ne, Amanda > pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 21:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.85

Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-06 21:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.108

Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such /OD) a Lankford, ne, Amanda > information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 18:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.5

Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 18:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.61

Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 18:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.84

Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately. 00) > 7PM -_ i Lankford, ne, Amanda Lankford, ne, Amanda
2021-12-08 18:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.107

Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel /OD) a a Lankford, ne, Amanda > Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 20:57 Amanda Fine open PDF p.4

Hi Sarah- So sorry for writing late. Crazy week for us! A call would be great, but we have another crazy day tomorrow and the best time that will work is 12:30-1pm. Will that work for you all as well? I'm attaching our responses to your comments in the stipulations document. I've included the answers to your questions below (highlighted). To answer your question about the key policy decision maker: that would be Renate. In terms of who has the most information to talk through the stipulation--that would be all of the OCPL people on this email. We each have different pieces of the information. My take away from the below explanation is that if we want to continue to moderate off topic comments on Facebook and Instagram, then we must decide to fight the lawsuit, and only if we win, then we could continue to do so. Is that accurate? Looking forward to the call. Thanks, Amanda /OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda Ola: iia Lankford, ne, Amanda >
2021-12-08 20:57 Amanda Fine open PDF p.60

Hi Sarah- So sorry for writing late. Crazy week for us! A call would be great, but we have another crazy day tomorrow and the best time that will work is 12:30-1pm. Will that work for you all as well? I'm attaching our responses to your comments in the stipulations document. I've included the answers to your questions below (highlighted). To answer your question about the key policy decision maker: that would be Renate. In terms of who has the most information to talk through the stipulation--that would be all of the OCPL people on this email. We each have different pieces of the information. My take away from the below explanation is that if we want to continue to moderate off topic comments on Facebook and Instagram, then we must decide to fight the lawsuit, and only if we win, then we could continue to do so. Is that accurate? OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda /OD) a: Lankford, ne, Amanda > Looking forward to the call. Thanks, Amanda
2021-12-08 20:57 Amanda Fine open PDF p.107

Hi Sarah- So sorry for writing late. Crazy week for us! A call would be great, but we have another crazy day tomorrow and the best time that will work is 12:30-1pm. Will that work for you all as well? I'm attaching our responses to your comments in the stipulations document. I've included the answers to your questions below (highlighted). To answer your question about the key policy decision maker: that would be Renate. In terms of who has the most information to talk through the stipulation--that would be all of the OCPL people on this email. We each have different pieces of the information. My take away from the below explanation is that if we want to continue to moderate off topic comments on Facebook and Instagram, then we must decide to fight the lawsuit, and only if we win, then we could continue to do so. Is that accurate? Looking forward to the call. Thanks, Amanda
2021-12-08 22:57 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.3

Hi Amanda, Thank you very much. I'm not sure we can get through everything in 30 minutes, but we can try. Lets tentatively set from 12:30-1pm. As to your comment that you haven't stopped the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals yet, can you please double check to confirm these are still on the list? I just checked NIH's most recent Instagram posts from my own personal Instagram account and I see #stoptestingonanimals and #stopanimaltesting comments. If this is still on the filter list, then this adds confusion as to why these comments are not hidden. For example, I see a #stoptestingonanimals on the December 3rd post about the POTUS briefing and on the December 3rd post about the placenta image. I also see a #stopanimaltesting on the November 19th post on Marsha's Alzheimer's Caregiver story. Essentially, your statement about the lawsuit is accurate, but only for moderating off topic animal testing comments. The lawsuit is about the animal-related keyword filters. To not fight the lawsuit, NIH would have to stop all animal-related /OD) [E] /OD) nate (NIH/OD) [E] > [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, keyword filters to appease the plaintiffs to drop the suit. Since manual hiding is not at issue in the lawsuit, NIH would have full discretion to do manual hiding. However, if NIH instead of using the keyword filters manually hid comments each day, it is likely plaintiffs would pick up on their comments being hidden and file another lawsuit about the hiding. So, in my opinion, I don't see the benefit of attempting to moderate the animal testing comments through another hiding mechanism, since it will likely just end up in another lawsuit as soon as plaintiffs notice their comments are hidden. If you see any other angle of how off-topic animal testing comments could be moderated without alarming the plaintiffs to want to file another lawsuit, then I'm happy to discuss. Therefore, for NIH to continue moderating off-topic animal testing relating comments, it seems the only option is to defend NIH's practices through the lawsuit, and if NIH wins then it can continue as-is and have discretion to filter viewpoint-neutral animal-related keywords and conduct manual hiding, etc. If NIH doesn't win, then NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic animal testing comments. The scope of an injunction would only apply to the animal testing keyword filters at issue. NIH would be able to continue to moderate off topic comments for subject matters outside of animals. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 22:57 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.59

Hi Amanda, Thank you very much. I'm not sure we can get through everything in 30 minutes, but we can try. Lets tentatively set from 12:30-1pm. As to your comment that you haven't stopped the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals yet, can you please double check to confirm these are still on the list? I just checked NIH's most recent Instagram posts from my own personal Instagram account and I see #stoptestingonanimals and #stopanimaltesting comments. If this is still on the filter list, then this adds confusion as to why these comments are not hidden. For example, /OD) [E] > /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia I see a #stoptestingonanimals on the December 3rd post about the POTUS briefing and on the December 3rd post about the placenta image. I also see a #stopanimaltesting on the November 19th post on Marsha's Alzheimer's Caregiver story. Essentially, your statement about the lawsuit is accurate, but only for moderating off topic animal testing comments. The lawsuit is about the animal-related keyword filters. To not fight the lawsuit, NIH would have to stop all animal-related keyword filters to appease the plaintiffs to drop the suit. Since manual hiding is not at issue in the lawsuit, NIH would have full discretion to do manual hiding. However, if NIH instead of using the keyword filters manually hid comments each day, it is likely plaintiffs would pick up on their comments being hidden and file another lawsuit about the hiding. So, in my opinion, I don't see the benefit of attempting to moderate the animal testing comments through another hiding mechanism, since it will likely just end up in another lawsuit as soon as plaintiffs notice their comments are hidden. If you see any other angle of how off-topic animal testing comments could be moderated without alarming the plaintiffs to want to file another lawsuit, then I'm happy to discuss. Therefore, for NIH to continue moderating off-topic animal testing relating comments, it seems the only option is to defend NIH's practices through the lawsuit, and if NIH wins then it can continue as-is and have discretion to filter viewpoint-neutral animal-related keywords and conduct manual hiding, etc. If NIH doesn't win, then NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic animal testing comments. The scope of an injunction would only apply to the animal testing keyword filters at issue. NIH would be able to continue to moderate off topic comments for subject matters outside of animals. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 22:57 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.83

Hi Amanda, Thank you very much. I'm not sure we can get through everything in 30 minutes, but we can try. Lets tentatively set from 12:30-1pm. As to your comment that you haven't stopped the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals yet, can you please double check to confirm these are still on the list? I just checked NIH's most recent Instagram posts from my own personal Instagram account and I see #stoptestingonanimals and #stopanimaltesting comments. If this is still on the filter list, then this adds confusion as to why these comments are not hidden. For example, I see a #stoptestingonanimals on the December 3rd post about the POTUS briefing and on the December 3rd post about the placenta image. I also see a #stopanimaltesting on the November 19th post on Marsha's Alzheimer's Caregiver story. Essentially, your statement about the lawsuit is accurate, but only for moderating off-topic animal testing comments. The lawsuit is about the animal-related keyword filters. To not fight the lawsuit, NIH would have to stop all animal-related keyword filters to appease the plaintiffs to drop the suit. Since manual hiding is not at issue in the lawsuit, NIH would have full discretion to do manual hiding. However, if NIH instead of using the keyword filters manually hid comments each day, it is likely plaintiffs would pick up on their comments being hidden and file another lawsuit about the hiding. So, in my opinion, I don't see the benefit of attempting to moderate the animal testing comments through another hiding mechanism, since it will likely just end up in another lawsuit as soon as plaintiffs notice their comments are hidden. If you see any other angle of how off-topic animal testing comments could be moderated without alarming the plaintiffs to want to file another lawsuit, then I'm happy to discuss. Therefore, for NIH to continue moderating off-topic animal testing relating comments, it seems the only option is to defend NIH's practices through the lawsuit, and if NIH wins then it can continue as-is and have discretion to filter viewpoint-neutral animal-related keywords and conduct manual hiding, etc. If NIH doesn't win, then NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic animal testing comments. The scope of an injunction would only apply to the animal-testing keyword filters at issue. NIH would be able to continue to moderate off topic comments for subject matters outside of animals. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 22:57 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.106

Hi Amanda, Thank you very much. I'm not sure we can get through everything in 30 minutes, but we can try. Lets tentatively set from 12:30-1pm. As to your comment that you haven't stopped the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals yet, can you please double check to confirm these are still on the list? I just checked NIH's most recent Instagram posts from my own personal Instagram account and I see #stoptestingonanimals and #stopanimaltesting comments. If this is still on the filter list, then this adds confusion as to why these comments are not hidden. For example, I see a #stoptestingonanimals on the December 3rd post about the POTUS briefing and on the December 3rd post about the placenta image. I also see a #stopanimaltesting on the November 19th post on Marsha's Alzheimer's Caregiver story. Essentially, your statement about the lawsuit is accurate, but only for moderating off topic animal testing comments. The lawsuit is about the animal-related keyword filters. To not fight the lawsuit, NIH would have to stop all animal-related keyword filters to appease the plaintiffs to drop the suit. Since manual hiding is not at issue in the lawsuit, NIH would have full discretion to do manual hiding. However, if NIH instead of using the keyword filters manually hid comments each day, it is likely plaintiffs would pick up on their comments being hidden and file another lawsuit about the hiding. So, in my opinion, I don't see the benefit of attempting to moderate the animal testing comments through another hiding mechanism, since it will likely just end up in another lawsuit as soon as plaintiffs notice their comments are hidden. If you see any other angle of how off-topic animal testing comments could be moderated without alarming the plaintiffs to want to file another lawsuit, then I'm happy to discuss. Therefore, for NIH to continue moderating off-topic animal testing relating comments, it seems the only option is to defend NIH's practices through the lawsuit, and if NIH wins then it can continue as-is and have discretion to filter viewpoint-neutral animal-related keywords and conduct manual hiding, etc. If NIH doesn't win, then NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic animal testing comments. The scope of an injunction would only apply to the animal testing keyword filters at issue. NIH would be able to continue to moderate off topic comments for subject matters outside of animals. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov /OD) [E] /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] ie, Amanda This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 23:24 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.2

/OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 23:24 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.59

Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 23:24 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.82

Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately. 7PM /OD) /OD) [E] /OD) [E] > [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, Lankford,
2021-12-08 23:24 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.105

Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-08 23:28 Amanda Fine open PDF p.58

Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia > /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni,
2021-12-08 23:28 Amanda Fine open PDF p.82

Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda
2021-12-08 23:28 Amanda Fine open PDF p.105

Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda
2021-12-22 18:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.81

Hi everyone, Happy holidays! I am following up from our last call. As an update, we just received another draft of the fact stipulation back from the Plaintiffs. It is now due to the court January 14, 2022 due to an extension request and we will be continuing to negotiate the facts with them over the next 3 weeks. I expect to have a few additional factual questions for you next week. In the meantime, I wanted to send you an answer to your question from our last call: Question: Could a decision in this case impact other NIH ICO social media accounts? Answer: It will likely not, because the case is limited to NIH's main Facebook and Instagram accounts. However, there is a small risk that a court may apply it more broadly if they rule for PETA. It is likely Plaintiffs will use broad wording in their briefs in order to have a wide scope to attack any policy that might apply NIH's main Facebook and Instagram pages. If a court rules for PETA, they may be ruling with that broad scope in mind and apply it to all of NIH and not the two specific accounts at issue. The DOJ has seen the court apply the decision more broadly than they should before. However, the DOJ has this scope on their radar and they will be sure to be extremely clear with the court that this concerns only the two social media pages, and if there was a ruling adverse to NIH it should be limited to these two pages only. This is why the DOJ sees a broader application to other NIH social media accounts as a small risk. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such /OD) [E] /OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-22 18:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.104

Hi everyone, Happy holidays! I am following up from our last call. As an update, we just received another draft of the fact stipulation back from the Plaintiffs. It is now due to the court January 14, 2022 due to an extension request and we will be continuing to negotiate the facts with them over the next 3 weeks. I expect to have a few additional factual questions for you next week. In the meantime, I wanted to send you an answer to your question from our last call: Question: Could a decision in this case impact other NIH ICO social media accounts? Answer: It will likely not, because the case is limited to NIH's main Facebook and Instagram accounts. However, there is a small risk that a court may apply it more broadly if they rule for PETA. It is likely Plaintiffs will use broad wording in their briefs in order to have a wide scope to attack any policy that might apply NIH's main Facebook and Instagram pages. If a court rules for PETA, they may be ruling with that broad scope in mind and apply it to all of NIH and not the two specific accounts at issue. The DOJ has seen the court apply the decision more broadly than they should before. However, the DOJ has this scope on their radar and they will be sure to be extremely clear with the court that this concerns only the two social media pages, and if there was a ruling adverse to NIH it should be limited to these two pages only. This is why the DOJ sees a broader application to other NIH social media accounts as a small risk. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-22 19:43 Amanda Fine open PDF p.57

Hi Sarah- Thanks for the update! I'm out next week, but Renate will be in. Good news on the extended deadline! Have a great holiday season and a happy new year! Amanda
2021-12-22 19:43 Amanda Fine open PDF p.81

Hi Sarah- Thanks for the update! I'm out next week, but Renate will be in. Good news on the extended deadline! Have a great holiday season and a happy new year! Amanda
2021-12-22 19:43 Amanda Fine open PDF p.104

Hi Sarah- Thanks for the update! I'm out next week, but Renate will be in. Good news on the extended deadline! Have a great holiday season and a happy new year! Amanda
2021-12-27 17:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.56

Hi team, I know some of you are out but I figured I would email the whole group the questions to see who is around and can answer a few questions this week. We are working on the next round of edits to the fact stipulation. Thank you very /OD) [E] > /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia 2PM much for your help! 1. The NIH Facebook and Instagram pages currently link to the privacy policy, https://www.nih.gov/about/privacy.htm. Would you have any concerns about adding a link on both pages to the comment moderation guidelines in addition to the privacy policy? *This is not a request yet, the DOJ is just weighing options.* 2. To prove the point that inflammatory comments may dissuade interested citizens from visiting the social media pages: Has the NIH received any complaints about animal rights comments on its social media pages? Has it received complaints about other comments that it considers to be "off-topic" or "inflammatory"? If so, do you have any specific proof or examples? 3. In your last response, you mentioned NIH has had some form of guidelines for moderating content since November 2012. Can you provide the guidance used prior to the March 30, 2015 guidelines were posted? 4. The Plaintiffs believe Facebook account holders can set the "level" of the profanity filter (weak/strong/etc.). What level has the NIH selected for its Facebook profanity filter? 5. During the relevant time period (Sep 2020 to now), has the NIH set any Facebook Live video-specific filtering? 6. On Facebook, is it possible that "non-animal" would be hidden because it contains the filtered word "animal"? Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-27 17:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.80

Hi team, I know some of you are out but I figured I would email the whole group the questions to see who is around and can answer a few questions this week. We are working on the next round of edits to the fact stipulation. Thank you very much for your help! 1. The NIH Facebook and Instagram pages currently link to the privacy policy, https://www.nih.gov/about/privacy.htm. Would you have any concerns about adding a link on both pages to the comment moderation guidelines in addition to the privacy policy? *This is not a request yet, the DOJ is just weighing options.* 2. To prove the point that inflammatory comments may dissuade interested citizens from visiting the social media pages: Has the NIH received any complaints about animal rights comments on its social media pages? Has it received complaints about other comments that it considers to be "off-topic" or "inflammatory"? If so, do you have any specific proof or examples? 3. In your last response, you mentioned NIH has had some form of guidelines for moderating content since November 2012. Can you provide the guidance used prior to the March 30, 2015 guidelines were posted? 4. The Plaintiffs believe Facebook account holders can set the "level" of the profanity filter (weak/strong/etc.). What level has the NIH selected for its Facebook profanity filter? 5. During the relevant time period (Sep 2020 to now), has the NIH set any Facebook Live video-specific filtering? 6. On Facebook, is it possible that "non-animal" would be hidden because it contains the filtered word "animal"? Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately. OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia
2021-12-27 17:52 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.103

Hi team, I know some of you are out but I figured I would email the whole group the questions to see who is around and can answer a few questions this week. We are working on the next round of edits to the fact stipulation. Thank you very much for your help! 1. The NIH Facebook and Instagram pages currently link to the privacy policy, https://www.nih.gov/about/privacy.htm. Would you have any concerns about adding a link on both pages to the comment moderation guidelines in addition to the privacy policy? *This is not a request yet, the DOJ is just weighing options.* 2. To prove the point that inflammatory comments may dissuade interested citizens from visiting the social media pages: Has the NIH received any complaints about animal rights comments on its social media pages? Has it received complaints about other comments that it considers to be "off-topic" or "inflammatory"? If so, do you have any specific proof or examples? 3. In your last response, you mentioned NIH has had some form of guidelines for moderating content since November 2012. Can you provide the guidance used prior to the March 30, 2015 guidelines were posted? 4. The Plaintiffs believe Facebook account holders can set the "level" of the profanity filter (weak/strong/etc.). What level has the NIH selected for its Facebook profanity filter? 5. During the relevant time period (Sep 2020 to now), has the NIH set any Facebook Live video-specific filtering? 6. On Facebook, is it possible that "non-animal" would be hidden because it contains the filtered word "animal"? Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney /OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-29 11:16 Lydia Polimeni open PDF p.56

Hi Sarah, Sorry for the delay, I was off yesterday Amanda and Anna are out this week but I can work on getting you answers to some of these; may not have it all until next week when I can consult with them however. Want to make sure the info is accurate! I hope that works. Thanks! Lydia Polimeni Office of Communications and Public Liaison Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health I @nih.gov
2021-12-29 11:16 Lydia Polimeni open PDF p.79

Hi Sarah, Sorry for the delay, I was off yesterday Amanda and Anna are out this week but I can work on getting you answers to some of these; may not have it all until next week when I can consult with them however. Want to make sure the info is accurate! I hope that works. Thanks! Lydia Polimeni Office of Communications and Public Liaison Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia I @nih.gov
2021-12-29 11:16 Lydia Polimeni open PDF p.102

/OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, limeni, Lydia Hi Sarah, Sorry for the delay, I was off yesterday Amanda and Anna are out this week but I can work on getting you answers to some of these; may not have it all until next week when I can consult with them however. Want to make sure the info is accurate! I hope that works. Thanks! Lydia Polimeni Office of Communications and Public Liaison Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health I @nih.gov
2021-12-29 11:47 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.55

00) /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] > /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] > E] Lankford, limeni, Lydia Hi Lydia, Thanks for your response. We need to get a draft back to the Plaintiffs early next week, so that is fine but if there is any way I could have the answers back Monday COB or Tuesday am that would be ideal. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-29 11:47 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.79

Hi Lydia, Thanks for your response. We need to get a draft back to the Plaintiffs early next week, so that is fine but if there is any way I could have the answers back Monday COB or Tuesday am that would be ideal. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2021-12-29 11:47 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.102

Hi Lydia, Thanks for your response. We need to get a draft back to the Plaintiffs early next week, so that is fine but if there is any way I could have the answers back Monday COB or Tuesday am that would be ideal. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-03 12:57 Anna Kern open PDF p.55

Hi Sarah, Most of us are back in the office, so we will aim to have these answers to you by COB today. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-03 12:57 Anna Kern open PDF p.102

Hi Sarah, Most of us are back in the office, so we will aim to have these answers to you by COB today. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-03 18:14 Anna Kern open PDF p.54

Hi Sarah, Thanks for your patience on these! Still trying to track down number 3 - will have an update for you tomorrow. Thanks! 1. The NIH Facebook and Instagram pages currently link to the privacy policy, https://www.nih.gov/about/privacy.htm. Would you have any concerns about adding a link on both pages to the comment moderation guidelines in addition to the privacy policy? *This is not a request yet, the DOJ is just weighing options.* Not at all, this would be ok with us. 2. To prove the point that inflammatory comments may dissuade interested citizens from visiting the social media pages: Has the NIH received any complaints about animal rights comments on its social media pages? Has it received complaints about other comments that it considers to be "off-topic" or "inflammatory"? If so, do you have any specific proof or examples? Please see examples below and screenshots attached. Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted (Animal testing focused): Specific examples of participants complaining of disruption: https://twitter.com/MarieAnneLeCler/status/518098761617506304 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518098626456088578 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518170943727095809 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518098132589371392 https://twitter.com/tdverstynen/status/518108160880828416 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518096043297488896 Examples of other off-topic disrupting comments from Facebook and Instagram (mostly COVID misinformation): https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n « https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jicui/?utm_medium=copy_link 00) > Fine, /OD) om Lankford, > oo) /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] > https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link 3. In your last response, you mentioned NIH has had some form of guidelines for moderating content since November 2012. Can you provide the guidance used prior to the March 30, 2015 guidelines were posted? We are still trying to locate this - the person who would know is out sick. Can we have until tomorrow on this? 4. The Plaintiffs believe Facebook account holders can set the "level" of the profanity filter (weak/strong/etc.). What level has the NIH selected for its Facebook profanity filter? NIH has the "strong" profanity filter in place. This has been in place prior to Sep 2020 and continues to be in place. 5. During the relevant time period (Sep 2020 to now), has the NIH set any Facebook Live video-specific filtering? No, but the general filters in place from Sep 2020 to now apply to Facebook Lives as well. Also, the platform attempts to prioritize most relevant comments on Facebook Lives, but off-topic comments still come through due to the volume of the comments coming through. 6. On Facebook, is it possible that "non-animal" would be hidden because it contains the filtered word "animal"? No, the word has to match the keyword filters in order to be hidden. The phrase "nonanimal" would not be hidden since it doesn't match "animal."
2022-01-03 18:14 Anna Kern open PDF p.77

Hi Sarah, Thanks for your patience on these! Still trying to track down number 3 - will have an update for you tomorrow. Thanks! 1. The NIH Facebook and Instagram pages currently link to the privacy policy, https://www.nih.gov/about/privacy.htm. Would you have any concerns about adding a link on both pages to the comment moderation guidelines in addition to the privacy policy? *This is not a request yet, the DOJ is just weighing options.* Not at all, this would be ok with us. 2. To prove the point that inflammatory comments may dissuade interested citizens from visiting the social media pages: Has the NIH received any complaints about animal rights comments on its social media pages? Has it received complaints about other comments that it considers to be "off-topic" or "inflammatory"? If so, do you have any specific proof or examples? Please see examples below and screenshots attached. Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted (Animal testing focused): Specific examples of participants complaining of disruption: https://twitter.com/MarieAnneLeCler/status/518098761617506304 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518098626456088578 00) oo) >; Fine, Lankford, https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518170943727095809 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518098132589371392 https://twitter.com/tdverstynen/status/518108160880828416 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518096043297488896 Examples of other off-topic disrupting comments from Facebook and Instagram (mostly COVID misinformation): https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link 3. In your last response, you mentioned NIH has had some form of guidelines for moderating content since November 2012. Can you provide the guidance used prior to the March 30, 2015 guidelines were posted? We are still trying to locate this - the person who would know is out sick. Can we have until tomorrow on this? 4. The Plaintiffs believe Facebook account holders can set the "level" of the profanity filter (weak/strong/etc.). What level has the NIH selected for its Facebook profanity filter? NIH has the "strong" profanity filter in place. This has been in place prior to Sep 2020 and continues to be in place. 5. During the relevant time period (Sep 2020 to now), has the NIH set any Facebook Live video-specific filtering? No, but the general filters in place from Sep 2020 to now apply to Facebook Lives as well. Also, the platform attempts to prioritize most relevant comments on Facebook Lives, but off-topic comments still come through due to the volume of the comments coming through. 6. On Facebook, is it possible that "non-animal" would be hidden because it contains the filtered word "animal"? No, the word has to match the keyword filters in order to be hidden. The phrase "nonanimal" would not be hidden since it doesn't match "animal."
2022-01-03 18:14 Anna Kern open PDF p.100

Hi Sarah, Thanks for your patience on these! Still trying to track down number 3 - will have an update for you tomorrow. Thanks! 1. The NIH Facebook and Instagram pages currently link to the privacy policy, https://www.nih.gov/about/privacy.htm. Would you have any concerns about adding a link on both pages to the comment moderation guidelines in addition to the privacy policy? *This is not a request yet, the DOJ is just weighing options.* Not at all, this would be ok with us. 2. To prove the point that inflammatory comments may dissuade interested citizens from visiting the social media pages: Has the NIH received any complaints about animal rights comments on its social media pages? Has it If so, do you (Animal ysted? received complaints about other comments that it considers to be "off-topic" or "inflammatory"? If so, do you have any specific proof or examples? Please see examples below and screenshots attached. Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted (Animal testing focused): Specific examples of participants complaining of disruption: https://twitter.com/MarieAnneLeCler/status/518098761617506304 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518098626456088578 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518170943727095809 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518098132589371392 https://twitter.com/tdverstynen/status/518108160880828416 https://twitter.com/CreativeSage/status/518096043297488896 Examples of other off-topic disrupting comments from Facebook and Instagram (mostly COVID misinformation): https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link 3. In your last response, you mentioned NIH has had some form of guidelines for moderating content since November 2012. Can you provide the guidance used prior to the March 30, 2015 guidelines were posted? We are still trying to locate this - the person who would know is out sick. Can we have until tomorrow on this? 4. The Plaintiffs believe Facebook account holders can set the "level" of the profanity filter (weak/strong/etc.). What level has the NIH selected for its Facebook profanity filter? NIH has the "strong" profanity filter in place. This has been in place prior to Sep 2020 and continues to be in place. 5. During the relevant time period (Sep 2020 to now), has the NIH set any Facebook Live video-specific filtering? No, but the general filters in place from Sep 2020 to now apply to Facebook Lives as well. Also, the platform attempts to prioritize most relevant comments on Facebook Lives, but off-topic comments still come through due to the volume of the comments coming through. 6. On Facebook, is it possible that "non-animal" would be hidden because it contains the filtered word "animal"? (00) (] > Fine /OD) _ Lankford, > oo) /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] > 0): a /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] > No, the word has to match the keyword filters in order to be hidden. The phrase "nonanimal" would not be hidden since it doesn't match "animal."
2022-01-14 09:22 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.53

Hi everyone, I have two additional follow-up questions from the DOJ: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such f(OD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )E) as (Animal information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-14 09:22 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.76

Hi everyone, I have two additional follow-up questions from the DOJ: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. /OD) [ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia ) a (Animal 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-14 12:56 Anna Kern open PDF p.53

Hi Sarah, Sure - we can get those answers to you by COB today. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-14 12:56 Anna Kern open PDF p.76

Hi Sarah, Sure - we can get those answers to you by COB today. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-14 12:56 Anna Kern open PDF p.99

Hi Sarah, Sure - we can get those answers to you by COB today. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-18 11:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.52

Hi Anna, Is there any way you could get these answers to me by COB today? Thanks. I received a little more information on the Twitter question: Plaintiffs are arguing that the relevant Twitter posts took place on the animal rights activists' own Twitter accounts; according to Plaintiffs, those Twitter posts did not take place on NIH's page. My understanding is that, perhaps, those activists "tagged" NIH's Twitter handle, which caused their comments to appear on NIH's Twitter page. Is that correct? Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) as /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-18 11:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.75

Hi Anna, OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )) Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Is there any way you could get these answers to me by COB today? Thanks. I received a little more information on the Twitter question: Plaintiffs are arguing that the relevant Twitter posts took place on the animal rights activists' own Twitter accounts; according to Plaintiffs, those Twitter posts did not take place on NIH's page. My understanding is that, perhaps, those activists "tagged" NIH's Twitter handle, which caused their comments to appear on NIH's Twitter page. Is that correct? Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-18 11:32 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.99

Hi Anna, Is there any way you could get these answers to me by COB today? Thanks. I received a little more information on the Twitter question: Plaintiffs are arguing that the relevant Twitter posts took place on the animal rights activists' own Twitter accounts; according to Plaintiffs, those Twitter posts did not take place on NIH's page. My understanding is that, perhaps, those activists "tagged" NIH's Twitter handle, which caused their comments to appear on NIH's Twitter page. Is that correct? Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-18 11:44 Anna Kern open PDF p.52

Hi Sarah, Yes - we'll get you those answers by COB. We'll elaborate in our response, but yes - while those activists posted from their own Twitter accounts, they tagged @NIH and used the NIH designated hashtag for the chat #NIHChat to ensure their responses appeared in the chat feed, so those comments did take place on a hashtag that NIH created. In addition to the activists, PETA tagged NIH and used the hashtag as well. Thanks, Anna
2022-01-18 11:44 Anna Kern open PDF p.75

Hi Sarah, Yes - we'll get you those answers by COB. We'll elaborate in our response, but yes - while those activists posted from their own Twitter accounts, they tagged @NIH and used the NIH designated hashtag for the chat #NIHChat to ensure their responses appeared in the chat feed, so those comments did take place on a hashtag that NIH created. In addition to the activists, PETA tagged NIH and used the hashtag as well. Thanks, Anna
2022-01-18 11:44 Anna Kern open PDF p.98

Hi Sarah, Yes - we'll get you those answers by COB. We'll elaborate in our response, but yes - while those activists posted from their own Twitter accounts, they tagged @NIH and used the NIH designated hashtag for the chat #NIHChat to ensure their responses appeared in the chat feed, so those comments did take place on a hashtag that NIH created. In addition to the activists, PETA tagged NIH and used the hashtag as well. Thanks, OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )) OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )) 2 AM > /OD) [ Renate (NIH/OD) [E] 00) () <n Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Anna
2022-01-18 14:13 Sarah S Imhoff open PDF p.51

Thanks, Anna. So sorry but another question came in. Plaintiffs are claiming comments that showed up for them are no longer showing up and are asking if we deleted them. In the attached first document, the post shows 20 comments and Brittny Hopwood's comments containing words show. This is what she saw in July and she took screenshots at that time. In the attached second document, the post shows 7 comments, with only one comment viewable and none of Brittny Hopwood's comments. I looked on my personal account myself and confirmed I only see one viewable comment and none from Brittny Hopwood. Plaintiffs' question is: Ms. Hopwood has confirmed that she did not delete these comments. Can you ask the NIH if they removed the comments at some point after they were initially posted? I assume the answer is no, NIH did not delete these comments, but I wanted to double check with you. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-18 14:13 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.74

OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )) Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Thanks, Anna. So sorry but another question came in. Plaintiffs are claiming comments that showed up for them are no longer showing up and are asking if we deleted them. In the attached first document, the post shows 20 comments and Brittny Hopwood's comments containing words show. This is what she saw in July and she took screenshots at that time. In the attached second document, the post shows 7 comments, with only one comment viewable and none of Brittny Hopwood's comments. I looked on my personal account myself and confirmed I only see one viewable comment and none from Brittny Hopwood. Plaintiffs' question is: Ms. Hopwood has confirmed that she did not delete these comments. Can you ask the NIH if they removed the comments at some point after they were initially posted? I assume the answer is no, NIH did not delete these comments, but I wanted to double check with you. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-18 14:13 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.98

Thanks, Anna. So sorry but another question came in. Plaintiffs are claiming comments that showed up for them are no longer showing up and are asking if we deleted them. In the attached first document, the post shows 20 comments and Brittny Hopwood's comments containing words show. This is what she saw in July and she took screenshots at that time. In the attached second document, the post shows 7 comments, with only one comment viewable and none of Brittny Hopwood's comments. I looked on my personal account myself and confirmed I only see one viewable comment and none from Brittny Hopwood. Plaintiffs' question is: Ms. Hopwood has confirmed that she did not delete these comments. Can you ask the NIH if they removed the comments at some point after they were initially posted? I assume the answer is no, NIH did not delete these comments, but I wanted to double check with you. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-18 15:25 Anna Kern open PDF p.51

Hi Sarah, You're correct - we did not delete these comments. I imagine since she made several comments in a row with no time in between the comments it violated FB's community standards and they were removed. See FB's policy regarding spam here: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/spam/ Thanks! Anna
2022-01-18 15:25 Anna Kern open PDF p.74

Hi Sarah, You're correct - we did not delete these comments. I imagine since she made several comments in a row with no time in between the comments it violated FB's community standards and they were removed. See FB's policy regarding spam here: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/spam/ Thanks! Anna
2022-01-18 15:25 Anna Kern open PDF p.97

Hi Sarah, You're correct - we did not delete these comments. I imagine since she made several comments in a row with no time in between the comments it violated FB's community standards and they were removed. See FB's policy regarding spam here: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/spam/ fOoD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia CE) a /OD) [ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )) Thanks! Anna
2022-01-19 10:00 Anna Kern open PDF p.50

Hi Sarah, Please see the answers to your questions below: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. You cannot post to someone's page on Twitter in the same way you can on Facebook. On Twitter, you can either reply to someone's tweet (aka tweet thread) or tweet under an established hashtag. The hashtag is a way to filter and organize tweets across Twitter by creating a feed with only those tweets using the same hashtag. It's a way to create a conversation on the platform. The hashtag for the chat was established by the NIH so that all chat participants could see the conversation around brain health. PETA posted both to NIH tweets and used the hashtag in this scenario. Participants would be looking at the tweets appearing on the hashtag (i.e. the conversation) and would have seen PETA's posts, and those following the tweet thread would have also seen PETA's posts. This means there would be no way to follow the information on the Twitter chat without being disrupted by the posts and being forced to work around them to get the relevant health information. 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Yes - we've received complaints about other inappropriate and/or off topic content that is not related to animal testing. Please see the screenshots and links to posts below. https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n /OD) [E] /OD) [E] OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, >; Polimeni, Lankford, limeni, Lydia https://www.facebook.com/nih.gov/posts/255820046589437 https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link Let us know if you any additional questions. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-19 10:00 Anna Kern open PDF p.73

Hi Sarah, Please see the answers to your questions below: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. You cannot post to someone's page on Twitter in the same way you can on Facebook. On Twitter, you can either reply to someone's tweet (aka tweet thread) or tweet under an established hashtag. The hashtag is a way to filter and organize tweets across Twitter by creating a feed with only those tweets using the same hashtag. It's a way to create a conversation on the platform. The hashtag for the chat was established by the NIH so that all chat participants could see the conversation around brain health. PETA posted both to NIH tweets and used the hashtag in this scenario. Participants would be looking at the tweets appearing on the hashtag (i.e. the conversation) and would have seen PETA's posts, and those following the tweet thread would have also seen PETA's posts. This means there would be no way to follow the information on the Twitter chat without being disrupted by the posts and being forced to work around them to get the relevant health information. /OD) [E] /OD) [E] OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, >; Polimeni, Lankford, limeni, Lydia 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Yes - we've received complaints about other inappropriate and/or off topic content that is not related to animal testing. Please see the screenshots and links to posts below. https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/nih.gov/posts/255820046589437 https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link Let us know if you any additional questions. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-19 10:00 Anna Kern open PDF p.96

Hi Sarah, Please see the answers to your questions below: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, /OD) [E] You cannot post to someone's page on Twitter in the same way you can on Facebook. On Twitter, you can either reply to someone's tweet (aka tweet thread) or tweet under an established hashtag. The hashtag is a way to filter and organize tweets across Twitter by creating a feed with only those tweets using the same hashtag. It's a way to create a conversation on the platform. The hashtag for the chat was established by the NIH so that all chat participants could see the conversation around brain health. PETA posted both to NIH tweets and used the hashtag in this scenario. Participants would be looking at the tweets appearing on the hashtag (i.e. the conversation) and would have seen PETA's posts, and those following the tweet thread would have also seen PETA's posts. This means there would be no way to follow the information on the Twitter chat without being disrupted by the posts and being forced to work around them to get the relevant health information. 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Yes - we've received complaints about other inappropriate and/or off topic content that is not related to animal testing. Please see the screenshots and links to posts below. https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/nih.gov/posts/255820046589437 https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link Let us know if you any additional questions. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-24 17:09 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.72

Hi Anna, Thanks so much! We are getting close to finalizing the fact stipulation. Hopefully by Friday but possibly next week if necessary. I have one needed clarification about Twitter, and would like your team to review some language about manual moderation to see if you have any feedback or edits. We initially did not want to include any detail about manual moderation, but this seems to be a sticking point for Plaintiffs. We think they want to focus on non-animal rights comments that violate NIH's comment guidelines and argue that NIH is only targeting animal rights comments, and will use the presence of these other extreme comments as their argument. The DOJ and I are starting to be ok with including a statement about manual moderation because we can easily explain why these other off topic comments exist- we can say that we didn't catch them because of lack of resources, and that we may hide those comments and look into adopting new filters to catch similar comments for in the future if the court's decision permits. If you could get back to me on the below by Wednesday COB if possible that would be great, or Thursday morning I think would be ok too. Thank you! 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia ) [E] a 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding--however, due to resource constraints, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-24 17:09 Sarah J. Imhoff open PDF p.95

Hi Anna, Thanks so much! We are getting close to finalizing the fact stipulation. Hopefully by Friday but possibly next week if necessary. I have one needed clarification about Twitter, and would like your team to review some language about manual moderation to see if you have any feedback or edits. /OD) [ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )E) We initially did not want to include any detail about manual moderation, but this seems to be a sticking point for Plaintiffs. We think they want to focus on non-animal rights comments that violate NIH's comment guidelines and argue that NIH is only targeting animal rights comments, and will use the presence of these other extreme comments as their argument. The DOJ and I are starting to be ok with including a statement about manual moderation because we can easily explain why these other off topic comments exist- we can say that we didn't catch them because of lack of resources, and that we may hide those comments and look into adopting new filters to catch similar comments for in the future if the court's decision permits. If you could get back to me on the below by Wednesday COB if possible that would be great, or Thursday morning I think would be ok too. Thank you! 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding--however, due to resource constraints, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-25 11:53 Anna Kern open PDF p.72

Hi Sarah, Just confirming receipt and that we are working on these responses. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-25 11:53 Anna Kern open PDF p.95

Hi Sarah, Just confirming receipt and that we are working on these responses. Thanks! Anna
2022-01-25 15:53 Anna Kern open PDF p.49

Hi Amanda and Renate, Below is a draft response (#1) back to Sarah regarding a question about the Twitter chat. I thought that the paragraph they drafted about the manual moderation of comments looked good. Please let us know if you have additional thoughts by COB tomorrow. Thank you! f(OoD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )) as Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
2022-01-25 15:53 Anna Kern open PDF p.71

Hi Amanda and Renate, Below is a draft response (#1) back to Sarah regarding a question about the Twitter chat. I thought that the paragraph they drafted about the manual moderation of comments looked good. Please let us know if you have additional thoughts by COB tomorrow. Thank you! 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? . Yes, for the most part. Tweets from users whose accounts are private would not be seen. However, all of the complaints and PETA's tweets direct at NIH are public. You can see the chat tweets from users who have a public Twitter profile. Here's the link to the chat with those publicly available tweets: Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted. 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, /OD) [E] f(OD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )E) Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding-- however, due to resource constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions.
2022-01-25 15:53 Anna Kern open PDF p.94

Hi Amanda and Renate, Below is a draft response (#1) back to Sarah regarding a question about the Twitter chat. I thought that the paragraph they drafted about the manual moderation of comments looked good. Please let us know if you have additional thoughts by COB tomorrow. Thank you! /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, /OD) [E] (o) >) nn Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )) 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? . Yes, for the most part. Tweets from users with a public profile can be seen by anyone following the chat. Tweets from users whose accounts are private would not be seen by everyone; only followers of a user with a private account would be able to view their tweets. However, PETA's tweets directed at NIH and the tweets complaining about PETA's disruptions are public. Here's the link to the chat with those publicly available tweets: Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted. 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding-- however, due to resource constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions.
2022-01-26 09:55 Anna Kern open PDF p.49

Bumping!
2022-01-26 09:55 Anna Kern open PDF p.71

Bumping!
2022-01-26 09:55 Anna Kern open PDF p.94

Bumping!
2022-01-26 11:30 Renate Myles open PDF p.71

Inline-Images: image001.png Hi Anna: I updated the response to the first Q based on our discussion. Thanks, Renate
2022-01-26 11:31 Renate Myles open PDF p.49

Hi Anna: I updated the response to the first Q based on our discussion. Thanks, Renate
2022-01-26 11:31 Renate Myles open PDF p.94

Hi Anna: I updated the response to the first Q based on our discussion. Thanks, Renate
2022-01-26 11:39 Amanda Fine open PDF p.49

Inline-Images: image001.png A couple of additional suggested edits on top of Renate's. Thanks, Amanda
2022-01-26 11:39 Amanda Fine open PDF p.94

Inline-Images: image001.png A couple of additional suggested edits on top of Renate's. Thanks, Amanda