A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
/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.
-
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.
-
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,
-
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
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,
-
Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda
-
Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda
-
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.
-
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.