NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 105

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. From: Fine, Amanda (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 11:28 PM To: Imhoff, Sarah (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Kern, Anna (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Cc: Spruill, Crystal (NIH/OD) [C] < @nih.gov>; Prince, Scott (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Lankford, David (NIH/OD) [E] < @od31tm1.od.nih.gov>; Myles, Renate (NIH/OD) [E] < @mail.nih.gov>; Polimeni, Lydia (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Subject: RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda From: Imhoff, Sarah (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 11:24 PM To: Fine, Amanda (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Kern, Anna (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Cc: Spruill, Crystal (NIH/OD) [C] < @nih.gov>; Prince, Scott (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Lankford, David (NIH/OD) [E] < @od31tm1.od.nih.gov>; Myles, Renate (NIH/OD) [E] < @mail.nih.gov>; Polimeni, Lydia (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Subject: RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information 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