NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 86
of 128 pages
← p.85 p.87 → · this page in the original PDF · package
1PM
(NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>; Polimeni, Lydia (NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>
Subject: RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information
Importance: High
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
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: Kern, Anna (NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 6:31 PM
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/86
Records on this page
| Record | Date | Type | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| nih_public_comments:email:00080 | 2021-12-06 | 86–87 | |
| nih_public_comments:email:00079 | 2021-12-06 | 85–86 |