Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 1 of 37

Document Pages Description

Nature of

Withholding Basis for Withholding

1 1

Two emails exchanged on November 13, 2002 among

Marlene Lauritsen, Poul Thorsen, Kreesten Madsen, and

Diana Schendel (CDC employee) regarding manuscript

entitled "Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism;

Negative evidence from Danish population-based data" Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is a discussion regarding the submission

of a manuscript for publication and a discussion of different

drafts of the manuscript.

5 U.S.C. § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is a comment about one of the author's work

status. Disclosure of this information would constitute an

invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

2 8

Draft manuscript entitled "Thimerosal and the

occurrence of autism; Negative evidence from Danish

population-based data" attached to November 13, 2002

email (Document 1)

Entire

document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This

document is a draft manuscript. A draft is the author's

recommendation of what the final document should say.

There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information

in this document, because any non-exempt information would

leave only meaningless words and phrases

3 1

December 5, 2002, email from Coleen Boyle (CDC

employee) to Diana Schendel (CDC employee) and Poul

Thorsen forwarding draft letter of support for

thimerosal manuscript Released in full n/a

4 1

Draft letter attached to December 5, 2002 email

(Document 3)

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This

document is a draft letter. A draft is the author's

recommendation of what the final document should say.

There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information

in this document, because any non-exempt information would

leave only meaningless words and phrases

Request 05-499

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 2 of 37

5 2

Two emails exchanged on December 13, 2002 among

Poul Thorsen, Diana Schendel (CDC employee), Kreesten

Madsen, with copies to Marlene Lauritsen, and Preben

Mortensen, regarding Congressional inquiry on autism

data. Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is a discussion of a proposed response.

The document is an internal HHS communcation discussing a

proposed response to a Congressional inquiry.

6 2

December 16, 2002 reply from Kreesten Madsen, in

response to Document 5. Reply has been released in

full; original two emails have identical redactions as

Document 5. Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is a discussion of a proposed response.

The document is an internal HHS communcation discussing a

proposed response to a Congressional inquiry.

7 1

December 16, 2002 email from Diana Schendel to

Kreesten Madsen and December 17, 2002 reply. Emails

discussing proposed response to Congressional inquiry

on autism data Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is a discussion of a proposed response.

The document is an internal HHS communcation discussing a

proposed response to a Congressional inquiry.

8 2

January 23, 2003 email, and underlying chain, regarding

reviewer's comments to manuscript.

Email released

in full n/a

9 4

Document, attached to January 23, 2003 email

(Document 8) containing reviewer's comments and

responses thereto

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document contains reviewer comments and responses

thereto, which are used to make edits to and prepare the final

draft of a manuscript. There was no reasonably segregable,

non-exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases

10 2

August 15, 2003 email chain with proposed press

release. Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is the mobile phone number of Kreeseten

Madsen. Disclosure of this information would constitute an

invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 3 of 37

11 1

September 1, 2003 email from Kreeseten Madsen to

Diana Schendel (CDC employee) Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is the mobile phone number of Kreeseten

Madsen. Disclosure of this information would constitute an

invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

12 2

November 26, 2002 chain of emails between Poul

Thorsen, Diana Schendel (CDC employee), and Coleen

Boyce (CDC employee), with a copy to Jose Cordero

(CDC employee) regarding draft cover letter to

manuscript. Redacted

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This

document is a draft letter. A draft is the author's

recommendation of what the final document should say.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is a comment about Poul Thorsen's personal life.

Disclosure of this information would constitute an invasion of

privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld

information would reveal nothing about the operations or

activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 3 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 4 of 37

Document Pages Description

Nature of

Withholding Basis for Withholding

13 6

Article: "A Retrospective Cohort Study of the

Association of Varicella Vaccine Failure With Asthma,

Steroid Use, Age at Vaccination, and Measles-Mumps-

Rubella Vaccination," by Thomas Verstraeten, et al, in

Pediatrics Vol. 112, No. 2, August 2003

Entire

Document

Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to

the Copyright Act.

14 1

January 28, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destafano and reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information and a statement of

the reason for a new phone number. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

15 1

July 3, 2001 email from Thomas Verstraeten to William

Thompson discussing analysis for “Safety of Thimerosal-

Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of

Computerized Health Maintenance Organization

Databases.” (hereinafter "Thimerosal Manuscript")

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. This document

includes contact information. Disclosure of this information

would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.

Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing

about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component

thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases

Request 05-680

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 4 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 5 of 37

16 1

February 28, 2002 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

William Thompson. Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document contains an internal HHS communication discussing

a pending study.

17 2

February 26, 2002 email chain between Frank

Destefano, Thomas Verstraeten, and others. Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof. The remainder of this document was

released during preparation of this index.

18 1

March 3, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Robert Davis, Frank Destefano, Robert Chen, and

William Thomson regarding speech delay Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document contains an internal HHS communication discussing

a pending study and a draft manuscript.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 5 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 6 of 37

19 1

December 10, 2001 email from William Thompson to

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and David Shay

regarding Thimerosal Manuscript and December 11,

2001 reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document contains an internal HHS communication discussing

the analysis underlying a draft manuscript..

20 2

December 2001 chain of emails among Thomas

Verstraeten, William Thompson, Robert Davis, and

David Shay regarding Thimerosal Manuscript Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 6 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 7 of 37

21 1

December 10, 2001 email from William Thompson to

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and David Shay

regarding Thimerosal Manuscript and December 11,

2001 reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript.

22 1

December 10, 2001 email from William Thompson to

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and David Shay

regarding Thimerosal Manuscript and December 11,

2001 reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 7 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 8 of 37

23 3

December 2001 chain of emails regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript Redactions

b(6) - 5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript.

24 1

Chain of emails between Thomas Verstraeten, Frank

Destefano, and Robert Davis regarding manuscript

entitled "Tetanus Immunity and Multiple Sclerosis"

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

review of a draft manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases

25 5 Reviewer comments attached to Document 24

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document consists of reviewer comments, which are used by

HHS to make edits to draft manuscripts and evaluate whether

to seek publication of a manuscript. This document also

includes information about the manuscript's publication

status. There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt

information in this document, because any non-exempt

information would leave only meaningless words and phrases.

26 2 GSK job listing for Clinical Safety Manager Released in full

This document was originally withheld, but was released in full

during Plaintiff's appeal.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 8 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 9 of 37

27 1

February 10, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and others regarding

Varicella-asthma article Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript.

28 2

April 28, 2003 email from Morag Menzies to Tom

Verstraeten regarding David Horrobin and "Tetanus

Immunity and Multiple Sclerosis;" email chain between

Tom Verstraeten, Frank Destefano, and Robert Davis in

response Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information includes contact information and a discussion of

an individual's personal life. Disclosure of this information

would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.

Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing

about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component

thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

potential publication of a draft manuscript.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 9 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 10 of 37

29 2

May 5, 2003 chain of emails between Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Phillip Rhodes, Frank

Destefano, and Trudy Murphy regarding "VSD exrended

FU for intessusception" Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript.

30 1

May 12, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas

Verstraeten Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

31 1

June 3, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas

Verstraeten Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

32 2

June 2003 chain of emails between Thomas Verstraeten

and Frank Destefano Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information Dr. Verstraeten's

comments on prior interactions with Dr. Feigin. Disclosure of

this information would constitute an invasion of privacy of

these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information

would reveal nothing about the operations or activities of

HHS, or any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 10 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 11 of 37

33 1

June 26, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas

Verstraeten Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

34 1

June 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano,

Thomas Verstraeten, and Robert Chen Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

35 1

July 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano,

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen, and Robert Davis Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

36 1

July 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano,

William Thompson, Robert Davis, and Robert Chen Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 11 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 12 of 37

37 1

July 2003 chain of email between Frank Destefano,

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen, and others Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

38 2

July 2003 chain of emails between Frank Destefano and

Thomas Verstraeten Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information and a discussion of

personal plans. Disclosure of this information would constitute

an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript.

39 1

January 4 5, 2004 emails between Frank Destefano and

Thomas Verstraeten regarding a forthcoming article Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information and comments regarding

Frank Destefano's activities. Disclosure of this information

would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.

Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing

about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component

thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 12 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 13 of 37

40 11

July 21, 2003 email from Frank Destefano forwarding an

article entitled "UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict"

Redactions on

first page,

remainder of

document

withheld in its

entirety

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to

the Copyright Act.

41 1

July 22, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert

Chen, Thomas Verstraeten, and others Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

42 1

August 14, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas

Verstraeten and August 12, 2003 e-mail from Charles

LeBaron regarding Pediatrics article Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

43 1

August 15, 2003 emails between Frank Destefano and

Thomas Verstraeten Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information and a discussion of

personal plans. Disclosure of this information would constitute

an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 13 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 14 of 37

44 1

August 26, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

45 1

September 4, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

46 1

September 18, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to

Thomas Verstraeten and Rob Davis, and underlying

email chain

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

possible assistance from another researcher. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases

47 1

September 23, 2003 email from Dan Zacherek to Frank

Destefano, Steve Wilson, and Thomas Verstraeten, and

September 24, 2003 response from Frank Destefano Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 15 of 37

48 1

September 29, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to

Thomas Verstraeten and Piotr Kramarz Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

49 1

October 16, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and response Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

50 1

October 17, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,

Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette

Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

51 2

October 17, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,

Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette

Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 15 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 16 of 37

52 3

October 23, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,

Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette

Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

53 22

October 23, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,

Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette

Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript; attachment containing Phil Rhodes'

comments on draft

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

54 7

October 24, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,

Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette

Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

55 2

October 22, 2003 email from Robert Davis to Frank

Destefano, Tracy Lieu, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay,

Robert Chen, and margarette Kolczak, containing Davis'

comments on draft, and Frank Destefano's October 23

response

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 16 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 17 of 37

56 8

October 29, 2003 email chain between Robert Chen,

Frank Destefano, David Shay, Phillip Rhodes, Margarette

Kolczak and Thomas Verstraeten regarding Thimerosal

Manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

57 1

November 7, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and Robert Chen and reply Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

58 4

November 2003 emails between Frank Destefano, Bob

Davis, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding publication of

tetanus immunity paper; October 15, 2003 email

correspondence with Morag Menzies regarding

publication

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

possible publication of a manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

59 4

November 2003 emails between Frank Destefano, Bob

Davis, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding publication of

tetanus immunity paper; October 15, 2003 email

correspondence with Morag Menzies regarding

publication

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

possible publication of a manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 17 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 18 of 37

60 3

December 17, 2003 email forwarding letter with

comments on "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing

Vaccines" article; December 18, 2003 email from Frank

Destefano forwarding letter to Robert Chen, Phillip

Rhodes, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu,

Steve Black, Henry Shinefield, and William Thompson Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to a letter to the editor. The original email,

containing the letter to the editor, was released during

preparation of this index.

61 5

December 18, 2003 email chain between Frank

Destefano forwarding letter to Robert Chen, Phillip

Rhodes, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu,

Steve Black, Henry Shinefield, and William Thompson

discussing response to December 17, 2003 letter Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to a letter to the editor. The original email,

containing the letter to the editor, was released during

preparation of this index.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 18 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 19 of 37

62 1

February 10, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and others regarding

Varicella-asthma article, and response from Frank

Destefano Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript.

63 2

December 31, 2003 email containing reviewer's

comments on Tetanus immunity manuscript; and

January 5, 2004, emails between Thomas Verstraeten,

Frank Destefano, and Bob Davis discussing same

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reveiwer comments on a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript.

This document also consists of reviewer comments, which are

used by HHS to make edits to draft manuscripts and evaluate

whether to seek publication of a manuscript.

64 6

February 23, 2004 email containing comments on

"Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" and

discussion among Frank Destefano, Thomas

Verstraeten, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Robert Davis,

and others, regarding response to a letter to the editor.

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to a letter to the editor. The original email,

containing the letter to the editor, was released during

preparation of this index.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 19 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 20 of 37

65 1

March 15, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and

katrin@bellsouth.net forwarding job posting, response

from Frank Destefano. Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information and a personal response to

a job posting. Disclosure of this information would constitute

an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

66 7

December 17, 2003 email forwarding letter with

comments on "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing

Vaccines" article; December 18, 2003 email from Frank

Destefano forwarding letter to Robert Chen, Phillip

Rhodes, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu,

Steve Black, Henry Shinefield, and William Thompson;

and resulting conversation regarding same Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to a letter to the editor. The original email,

containing the letter to the editor, was released during

preparation of this index.

67 1

February 6, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to Gina

Mootrey and Robert Chen Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 20 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 21 of 37

68 5

February 23, 2004 email containing comments on

"Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" and

discussion among Frank Destefano, Tom Verstraeten,

Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Robert Davis, and others,

regarding response to comments Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to a letter to the editor. The original email,

containing the letter to the editor, was released during

preparation of this index.

69 1

February 27, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Robert Chen, Frank Destefano, and Tracey Lieu, and

response from Frank Destefano, regarding

pharmacoepidemiology conference Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof. The remainder of this document was

released during preparation of this index.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 21 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 22 of 37

70 6

February 23, 2004 email containing comments on

"Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" and

discussion among Frank Destefano, Thomas

Verstraeten, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Robert Davis,

and others, regarding response to comments Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to a letter to the editor. The original email,

containing the letter to the editor, was released during

preparation of this index.

71 1

March 30, 2004 email from Pediatrics P3Rs to Frank

Destefano regarding reviewer comments on "Safety of

Thimerosal Containing Vaccines" and March 31, 2004

email forwarding email to Robert Chen, Phillip Rhodes,

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve

Black, and Henry Shinefield Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof. The remainder of this document was

released during preparation of this index.

72 1

March 30, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and Robert Chen regarding letter to the

editor; response from Frank Destefano Released in full

This document was originally withheld, but was released in full

during preparation of this index.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 22 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 23 of 37

73 1

October 13, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to

William Thompson, James Baggs, Eric Weintraub, and

Thomas Verstraeten regarding publication options Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof. The remainder of this document was

released during preparation of this index.

74 1

October 10, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and Robert Davis, and October 13,

2004 response, regarding publication of Tetanus articles

and Destefano's comments thereof

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

potential publication of a draft manuscript and proposed edits

to the draft. There was no reasonably segregable, non-

exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

75 2

October 22, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to

Thomas Verstraeten discussing IOM meeting, data from

VSD studies, and thimerosal manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

presentation on the "VSD studies." There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

76 8

Article attached to Document 75: "Quality Assessments

of HMO Diagnosis Databases Used to Monitor

Childhood Vaccine Safety," J. Mullooly, et al., Methods

Inf Med; 43: 163-70

Entire

Document

Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to

the Copyright Act.

77 6

Article attached to Document 76: "Risk of Anaphylaxis

After Vaccination of Children and Adolescents," Kari

Bohlke, et al, Pediatrics Vol. 112, No. 4, October 2003.

Entire

Document

Copyright. This document was withheld because it is subject to

the Copyright Act.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 23 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 24 of 37

78 2

October 25, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Pioter Kramars and others

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. This document is

personal correspondence regarding travel plans and

attendance at a conference. Disclosure of this information

would constitute an invasion of privacy of these individuals.

Disclosure of the withheld information would reveal nothing

about the operations or activities of HHS, or any component

thereof. There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt

information in this document, because any non-exempt

information would leave only meaningless words and phrases.

79 2

December 22, 2004 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and December 23 response regarding

vaccine study, data, and publication status

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing the

analysis underlying a draft manuscript and potential

publication of said manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

80 2

October 2004 and February 2005 emails regarding

publication of tetanus manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

proposed edits to a draft manuscript and potential publication

of said manuscript. There was no reasonably segregable, non-

exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 24 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 25 of 37

81 1

February 17, 2005 email from Thomas Verstraeten to

Frank Destefano and Miles Braun, and Frank Destefano's

February 18, 2005 response, regarding workshop on

data mining Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

82 1

February 18, 2005 email from Frank Destefano to John

Iskander forwarding Thomas Verstraeten's February 17,

2005 email to Frank Destefano and Miles Braun

regarding workshop on data mining Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

83 2

February 18, 2005 emails between Frank Destefano and

John Iskander regarding attending data mining

workshop Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

84 2

February 18, 2005 emails between Frank Destefano,

John Iskander, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding

attending data mining workshop Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 25 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 26 of 37

85 2

February 2005 emails between Frank Destefano, John

Iskander, and Thomas Verstraeten regarding attending

data mining workshop Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

86 2

March 2005 emails regarding Vaccine Data Mining

Workshop Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

87 2

April 25 and 26, 2005 emails between Thomas

Verstraeten and Frank Destefano regarding job vacancy

and tetanus manuscript Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information and comments about

personal life. Disclosure of this information would constitute

an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is an internal HHS communication with a

follow up question regarding the tetanus manuscript

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 26 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 27 of 37

88 2

April 26, 2005 email forwarding Thomas Verstraeten's

email regarding a job vacancy Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information and comments about

personal life. Disclosure of this information would constitute

an invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

89 1

April 22, 2005 email from Miguel Herman to Frank

Destefano's April 26, 2005 response regarding

publication of tetanus manuscript Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is information about an outside individual's

academic endeavors and grant application. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof. This document was originally

withheld in its entirety, but a portion was released during

preparation of this index.

90 1

April 22, 2005 email from Miguel Herman to Frank

Destefano's April 26, 2005 response regarding

publication of tetanus manuscript, and response Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is information about an outside individual's

academic endeavors and grant application. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof. A portion of this document was

released during preparation of this index.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 27 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 28 of 37

91 4

April 2005 chain of emails between Thomas Verstraeten

and Frank Destefano regarding job vacancy, tetanus

manuscript, and ISPE board Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information, comments about personal

life, and comments about an upcoming election. Disclosure of

this information would constitute an invasion of privacy of

these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information

would reveal nothing about the operations or activities of

HHS, or any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

proposed assistance of another researcher.

92 2

April 28, 2005 chain of emails discussing request from

Miguel Hernan Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information, comments about personal

life, and comments about an upcoming election. Disclosure of

this information would constitute an invasion of privacy of

these individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information

would reveal nothing about the operations or activities of

HHS, or any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

response to the original email.

93 2 April 29, 2005 emails regarding data mining workshop Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 28 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 29 of 37

94 2

May 2005 email chain between Frank Destefano,

Thomas Verstraeten, and Robert Davis regarding

publication of tetanus manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is an internal HHS communication with a

discussion of the publication of, and edits to, the tetanus

manuscript. There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt

information in this document, because any non-exempt

information would leave only meaningless words and phrases.

95 1

June 27, 2005 email from Thomas Verstraeten to Robert

Davis and Frank Destefano regarding ISPE board

elections Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

96 3

July 2005 email chain between Frank Destefano,

Thomas Verstraeten, and Robert Chen regarding "VSD

extrended FU for intussuception" Redactions

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is contact information. Disclosure of this

information would constitute an invasion of privacy of these

individuals. Disclosure of the withheld information would

reveal nothing about the operations or activities of HHS, or

any component thereof.

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

redacted information is an internal HHS communication with

discussion of papers on RV and intussception, and possible

next course of action.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 29 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 30 of 37

97 55

October 1, 203 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas

Verstraeten forwarding draft manuscript: "Safety of

Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of

Computerized Health Maintenance Organization

Databases;" document includes attachment

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This

document is a draft manuscript. A draft is the author's

recommendation of what the final document should say.

There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information

in this document, because any non-exempt information would

leave only meaningless words and phrases. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

98 1

May 20, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert

Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen,

Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy

Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on Thimerosal

Manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

99 2

May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,

Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert

Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and

Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal

screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

100 1

May 20, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert

Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen,

Phillip Rhodes, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 30 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 31 of 37

101 1

May 20, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Robert

Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Chen,

Phillip Rhodes, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

102 2

May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,

Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert

Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and

Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal

screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

103 1

May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,

Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert

Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and

Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal

screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

104 2

May 20, 2003 email chain among Frank Destefano,

Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert

Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip Rhodes, David Shay, and

Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal

screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 31 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 32 of 37

105 2

May 20 and 21, 2003 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip

Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

106 2

May 20 and 21, 2003 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip

Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

107 3

May 20 and 21, 2003 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip

Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

108 2

May 20, 21, and 22, 2003 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip

Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 32 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 33 of 37

109 1

May 22, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Phillip Rhodes, and Robert

Chen including a draft paragraph for the thimerosal

paper

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

110 2

May 20, 21, and 22, 2003 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip

Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

111 2

May 20, 21, and 22, 2003 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Robert Davis, Julianna Gee, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Chen, Henry Shinefield, Phillip

Rhodes, David Shay, and Tracy Lieu, discussing reviewer

comments on thimerosal screening analysis

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a draft manuscript. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

112 2

June 3, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to Frank

Destefano containing edits to manuscript, June 13, 2003

response

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

proposed edits to a draft manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 33 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 34 of 37

113 2

June 2, 2003 email from Thomas Verstraeten to Frank

Destefano containing edits to manuscript, June 13, 2003

response, and resulting correspondence

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

proposed edits to a draft manuscript. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

114 55 56

June 30, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Phillip

Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert

Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black, and Henry Shinefield,

transmitting letter to Pediatrics Editorial Office

addressing reviewer comments and attaching draft

manuscript

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. This

document is a draft manuscript. A draft is the author's

recommendation of what the final document should say.

There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information

in this document, because any non-exempt information would

leave only meaningless words and phrases. There was no

reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in this

document, because any non-exempt information would leave

only meaningless words and phrases.

115 3

November 20, 2003 chain of emails among Frank

Destefano, Robert Chen, Walter Orenstein, Melinda

Wharton, Roger Bernier, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert

Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black, and Henry Shinefield

discussing erratum submitted to Pediatrics; enclosing

draft errata

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

potential erratum to accompany a manuscript and includes a

draft erratum. A draft is the author's recommendation of what

the final document should say. There was no reasonably

segregable, non-exempt information in this document,

because any non-exempt information would leave only

meaningless words and phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 34 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 35 of 37

116 2

November 21, 2003 email from Frank Destefano to Walt

Orenstein and Robert Chen regarding erratum to

Pediatrics; draft erratum attached

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing a

potential erratum to accompany a manuscript. This document

also contains a draft erratum. A draft is the author's

recommendation of what the final document should say.

There was no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information

in this document, because any non-exempt information would

leave only meaningless words and phrases.

117 10

February and March 2004 email chain amend Frank

Destefano, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black,

Henry Shinefield, Robert Bernier, and Brooke Barry,

discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal article and

draft response

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication

discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.

A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final

document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,

non-exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

118 11

January 2004 chain of emails among Frank Destefano,

Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, and Phillip Rhodes

discussing reviewer comments and attaching draft

response

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication

discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.

A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final

document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,

non-exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 35 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 36 of 37

119 8

February and March 2004 email chain among Frank

Destefano, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black,

Henry Shinefield, Rober Bernier, and Brooke Barry,

discussing reviewer comments on Thimerosal

Manuscript and draft response

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication

discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.

A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final

document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,

non-exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

120 8

February and March 2004 email chain amend Frank

Destefano, Phillip Rhodes, Robert Chen, Thomas

Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Tracy Lieu, Steve Black,

Henry Shinefield, Rober Bernier, and Brooke Barry,

discussing reviewer comments on thimerosal article and

draft response

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication

discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.

A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final

document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,

non-exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

121 3

March 24, 2004 email from Frank Destefano to Robert

Chen, Thomas Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Steve Black,

Tracy Lieu, Phillip Rhodes, Susan Chu, and Brooke Barry,

forwarding draft response to reviewer comments

Entire

Document

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(5), deliberative process privilege. The

document is an internal HHS communication discussing

reviewer comments on a manuscript. This communication

discusses a proposed response and includes a draft response.

A draft is the author's recommendation of what the final

document should say. There was no reasonably segregable,

non-exempt information in this document, because any non-

exempt information would leave only meaningless words and

phrases.

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 36 of 37

Hooker v. Sebelius, 1:10-cv-01276-ABJ, Vaughn Index, Page 37 of 37

Document Pages Description

Nature of

Withholding Basis for Withholding

122 1

February 13, 2004 letter from Larry K. Pickering, M.D.,

to Sarah Parker Redaction

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is the last name and contact information of an

individual. Disclosure of this information would constitute an

invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

123 2

January 15, 2004 letter from Larry K. Pickering, M.D., to

Sarah Parker Redaction

5 U.S.C. 552 § (b)(6), personal information. The redacted

information is the personal contact information of Larry

Pickering. Disclosure of this information would constitute an

invasion of privacy of these individuals. Disclosure of the

withheld information would reveal nothing about the

operations or activities of HHS, or any component thereof.

Request 05-674

Case 1:11-cv-01276-ABJ Document 11-2 Filed 11/04/11 Page 37 of 37