NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 82
of 128 pages
← p.81 p.83 → · this page in the original PDF · package
/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.
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
(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.
This is our OCR of the page, with running headers and footers removed. The
Committee's PDF
is authoritative; quote from it. Machine-readable, including the uncleaned
text: /api/page/nih_public_comments/82
Records on this page
| Record | Date | Type | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information | 2021-12-08 | 82–83 | |
| RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information | 2021-12-08 | 82 | |
| RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information | 2021-12-22 | 81–82 |