UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRIS WRIGHT, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 22-1378 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 48, 52 : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH : AND HUMAN SERVICES, : : Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND STAY; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action, the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (“HHS” or “Defendant”), on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(“FDA” or the “Agency”), seeks to extend the existing stay of the FDA’s further response to the

FOIA request at issue for an additional six months. HHS argues that the FDA is entitled to a stay

because the FDA is under an extraordinary workload that could not have been predicted, and the

FDA has been exercising due diligence in responding to the orders. Proceeding pro se, plaintiff

Chris Wright (“Wright” or “Plaintiff”) contends that because HHS admitted wrongdoing and the

new administration’s attitude towards the public’s rights to public health information differ from

the previous administration, this Court should not grant HHS’s motion to extend stay.

Separately, Wright requested this Court to order President Donald J. Trump’s political

appointees to personally review this case and see whether they want to handle the case

differently than President Joseph R. Biden’s administration. HHS argues that Wright’s motion lacks basis and should be denied. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants HHS’s motion to

extend stay and denies Wright’s motion for order.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This action stems from a FOIA request submitted by Wright on November 12, 2021,

seeking several categories of records related to adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

Specifically, Wright made four requests: (1) “[d]ecision memo(s) or other records regarding

further studies of [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System . . . ] COVID vaccine adverse

reaction reports, setting forth the decision(s) and underlying rationale(s)[,]” (2) “[a]ny and all

further studies of adverse reactions to COVID vaccines that have been conducted[,]” (3) “[a]ny

and all records discussing adverse reactions to COVID vaccines after the decision memo(s)[,]”

and (4) [a]ny and all records previously released under same or similar FOIA requests.” Def.’s

Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute (“Def.’s Stmt.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 38-1; Decl. of

Alesia Y. Williams (“Williams Decl.”), Ex. A, ECF No. 38-3. The CDC acknowledged the

request on November 16, 2021, and placed it in its complex processing queue. Def.’s Stmt.

¶¶ 2–3; Decl. of Roger Andoh (“Andoh Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 38-5. Wright then revised the third

item in the request to specifically target records analyzing mortality as a vaccine adverse

reaction, and he instructed the CDC to use search terms including “death,” “dying,” “dead,”

“kill,” and “murder,” among others. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 4; Andoh Decl. ¶¶ 17–18.

Following this, the CDC searched records within its Immunization and Safety Office

(“ISO”) and determined the records requested fell within that office’s purview. Andoh Decl. ¶ 6.

The CDC explained that the ISO is responsible for monitoring vaccine safety and therefore was

the appropriate entity to conduct the search. See Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 5; Andoh Decl. ¶ 6. Regarding

2 Item 1, the CDC stated that it does not produce decision memos and therefore had no responsive

documents, but it provided links to standard operating procedures and vaccine safety studies.

See Andoh Decl. ¶ 11; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 8. For Item 2, the CDC searched and shared links to all

publicly available COVID-19 studies. See Andoh Decl. ¶ 12; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 8. Following the

revised request for Item 3, the CDC provided links to responsive public records using the

mortality-related search terms. See Andoh Decl. ¶ 19; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 8. Finally, for Item 4, a

relevant CDC division searched the FOIA inbox, and the search produced thirteen responsive

documents, which were subsequently released to Wright. See Andoh Decl. ¶ 14; Def.’s Stmt.

¶ 8.

Wright then proceeded by filing a motion to compel in July 2023, and in response, the

CDC expanded its search related to Item 1. See Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 6; Andoh Decl. ¶¶ 23–24. From

the expanded search, thirteen pages were partially redacted, six pages were withheld entirely, and

the rest were released in full. Andoh Decl. ¶¶ 23–27; see also CDC Vaughn Index,

ECF No. 38-6. The CDC also asked the Chief Medical Officer and the Incident Manager of the

Coronavirus and Other Respiratory Viruses Division to search their emails and shared drives for

relevant documents, which did not result in any responsive records. Andoh Decl. ¶ 25; Def.’s

Stmt. ¶ 7.

In addition to the CDC’s efforts, HHS itself conducted a search through the Office of the

Chief Information Officer (“OCIO”) within the Office of the Secretary. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 10;

Williams Decl. at 3, ECF No. 38-2. In response to Wright’s motion to compel, HHS identified

the OCIO as a potential source for responsive records. Id. On April 23, 2024, HHS directed the

OCIO to perform a search of the agency’s email enterprise for emails from key custodians:

Secretary Xavier Becerra, Deputy Secretary Andrea Palm, and Chief of Staff Sean McCluskie.

3 Williams Decl. at 3–4. These individuals were selected based on their likely involvement in

discussions regarding VAERS COVID vaccine adverse reaction reports. Id. ¶ 6. The search

used the terms “Proposal AND COVID AND VAERS” and was limited to emails from

December 14, 2020, through November 11, 2021, which aligned with the time frame specified in

Wright’s FOIA request. Id. ¶ 7. This search yielded a total of 1,632 pages of documents that

were initially deemed “potentially responsive.” Id. ¶ 8. Upon review by the HHS FOIA Office,

only 25 pages were deemed fully responsive to Wright’s request, and these were released in full.

Id. The remaining 1,607 pages were deemed unresponsive, meaning they did not contain

relevant information related to adverse reactions to COVID vaccines or related decision memos

and studies. See id. at 3–4. A final decision letter, along with the 25 responsive pages, was sent

to Wright on September 12, 2024. Id. at Ex. B, ECF No. 38-4. This letter communicated the

results of the search and provided the requested documents. Id.; Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 10–12.

B. Procedural Background

On October 11, 2023, HHS moved for an eighteen-month stay of FDA’s response to the

request at issue under

(a)(6)(C) and Landis v. North American Co.,

(1936), because of the unprecedented burden from the court orders in Public Health & Medical

Professionals for Transparency v. FDA, No. 21-cv-1058 (N.D. Tex.) (“PHMPT I”) and Public

Health & Medical Professionals for Transparency v. FDA, No. 22-cv-0915 (N.D. Tex.)

(“PHMPT II”). Def.’s Mot. Extend Stay & Mem. in Supp. (“Mot. Stay”) at 1, ECF No. 48. This

Court granted the eighteen-month stay, but it expired on April 11, 2025. Id. at 3. With the two

cases and additional changes in their circumstances, Defendant seeks to extend the FDA’s stay

for an additional six months. Id. at 2. Additionally, on May 9, 2025, Wright requested this

Court to order President Trump’s political appointees in the HHS Secretary’s office, the Civil

4 Division at the Justice Department, and in the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office to review the case.

Pl.’s Mot. for Trump Admin. Review & Mem. in Supp. (“Mot. Order”) at 1, ECF No. 52.

Wright wanted President Trump’s political appointees to review the case and decide whether the

appointees wanted to decide differently than the previous administration’s decision. Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The scope of FOIA gives the district court authority to enjoin an agency from

withholding agency records and order the production of any agency records improperly withheld,

and review the defendant’s actions in the district in which the complainant resides, or has the

defendant’s principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the

District of Columbia. See

(a)(4)(B). This judicial authority can only be invoked

under the jurisdictional grant conferred by

(a)(4)(B) if an agency has “improperly

withheld agency records.” See Kissinger v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press,

(1980) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In considering a motion to stay proceedings, the Court will not grant a stay if it would

“unnecessarily delay proceedings” or when consolidating cases would “necessitate a renewed

round of briefing by all parties.” Bell v. Dep't of Def., No. 16-cv-2403,

, at

*18 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018). “A trial court has broad discretion to stay all proceedings in a case

while awaiting the outcome of other proceedings.” Faizi v. Garland, No. 24-839,

, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2024). Thus, courts consider: (1) the injury to the movant if the

litigation proceeds without a stay, (2) the injury to the non-movant if a stay is granted, and (3)

the court’s interest in judicial economy. See Hulley Enters. Ltd. v. Russian Fed’n,

, 152 (D.D.C. 2020). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent

in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and

5 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Miller,

, 879

n.6 (1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). Indeed, “[a] trial court

may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to

enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear

upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,

(9th Cir. 1979).

IV. ANALYSIS

Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions—HHS’s motion to extend stay, Wright’s

motion for order, and the accompanying responses—the Court identifies two principal issues that

warrant resolution. First, in resolving the FDA’s motion to stay, the Court must determine

whether HHS had an unreasonably large volume of requests, inadequate resources to resolve the

requests, and a good faith effort in the due diligence of the requests. Second, in resolving

Wright’s motion for order, the Court must address whether it can, or should, order President

Trump’s political appointees to personally review this case and decide whether the appointees

want to handle the matter differently than the previous administration. The Court will address

each of these issues in turn.

A. Motion to Extend Stay

HHS argues that the FDA is entitled to extend the stay for an additional six months

because active litigation in PHMPT I and PHMPT II has imposed “an extraordinary workload”

on FDA, and “FDA [has] experienced a significant reduction in force.” Mot. Stay at 1–2. The

Court agrees.

“Generally, an agency receiving a FOIA request must determine whether to comply with

the request within 20 working days.” See Leadership Conf. on Civ. Rts. v. Gonzales,

(D.D.C. 2005) (citing

(a)(6)(A)(i)). If an agency fails to

6 comply with the applicable time limit provisions, the individual who requested access to the

agency’s records is considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies. See

(a)(6)(C)(i). However, if the Government demonstrates that exceptional circumstances

exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in processing the request, the court may

retain jurisdiction and grant the agency additional time to complete its review of the records. See

This Circuit has held that through

(a)(6)(C), Congress intended:

[T]o mean that “exceptional circumstances exist” when an agency, like the [FDA] here, is deluged with a volume of requests for information vastly in excess of that anticipated by Congress, when the existing resources are inadequate to deal with the volume of such requests within the time limits of subsection (6)(A), and when the agency can show that it “is exercising due diligence” in processing the requests.

See Open Am. v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force,

(D.C. Cir. 1976). An

agency’s “good faith effort and due diligence” in responding to lawful FOIA requests—by

processing them “on a first-in, first-out basis,” except when “exceptional need or urgency” is

demonstrated—constitutes compliance with the Act.

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances existed for the FDA within Congress’

interpretation of

(a)(6)(C). First, the court-ordered productions in PHMPT I and

PHMPT II—combined with Wright’s requests—created a volume of requests that vastly

exceeded Congress’ expectations. See Gonzales,

(stating that an agency

that received a request for sixteen “projects” was not enough to be considered an exceptional

circumstance). Here, the FDA received a request for “approximately 5.7 million pages of

COVID-19 vaccine-related records” which required FDA to “produce records at rates ranging

from a total of 90,000 to 180,000 pages per month since July 2023.” Mot. Stay at 4. Second, the

FDA did not have the adequate resources to deal with this excess of volume of requests. During

this request period, the FDA experienced a significant reduction in workforce that was

7 unplanned. Id. at 2; see Martin Bros. Constr. v. United States,

(2025) (holding

exceptional circumstances did not exist when a reduction in workforce was planned). Lastly, the

FDA exercised due diligence throughout the requests. The FDA “implemented a multi-track

process for handling FOIA requests” to combat the large volume of requests. Mot. Stay at 6; see

Democracy Forward Found. v. DOJ,

(D.D.C. 2018) (holding that an

agency that implemented a multi-track processing system for FOIA requests had shown

sufficient evidence of due diligence). The new multi-track system would place requests into

“one or more of six queues based on volume, complexity, and/or subject matter and requests in

each queue generally assigned to reviewers for processing on a first-in, first-out basis.” Mot.

Stay at 6. These implementations indicate that even with the immense number of documents that

needed to be processed, the FDA had created a system to best alleviate any inevitable delays.

Thus, the FDA has shown due diligence.

For the reasons stated above, HHS is entitled to a six-month extension of the stay because

the FDA demonstrated that an exceptional circumstance existed and handled the request process

diligently.1 The Court will therefore grant HHS’s motion to extend stay.

B. Motion for Order

Additionally, Wright requested that this Court order President Trump’s political

appointees in the HHS Secretary’s office, the Civil Division at the Justice Department, and in the

D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office to review the case. Mot. Order at 1. Wright argues that the new

1 HHS is also entitled to the extended stay under Landis. In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court considers the injury to the movant if the litigation proceeds without a stay, the injury to the non-movant if a stay is granted, and the Court’s interest in judicial economy. See Hulley, 502 F. Supp. 3d at 152. The FDA is working under limited resources while trying to manage an excess workload, there is no injury to Wright if a stay is granted, and a stay will allow the FDA to properly review and release documents, thus simplifying issues before this Court.

8 administration would handle the matter differently in comparison to the previous administration.

Id. The Court declines to issue such an order.

(a)(4)(B) grants a district court jurisdiction to review “de novo” an

agency’s decision to withhold records and empowers courts “to enjoin the agency from

withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly

withheld from the complainant.”

(a)(4)(B). In addition to allowing the district

court to enjoin the agency from withholding records, “[t]he court may assess against the United

States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under

this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.”

(a)(4)(E).

The Court finds that Wright is not entitled to the relief he is seeking by requesting this

Court to order President Trump’s political appointees to personally review his case. Under

(a)(4), the only recourse that a district court can provide for Wright would be to

enjoin the FDA from withholding the requested documents and assert reasonable attorney fees

and other litigation costs against HHS. See

(a)(4)(B), (E). These forms of

recourse would only be available if this Court found the FDA to be improperly withholding the

documents requested by Wright, which this Court has not. See id.; Mem. Op. Granting Def.’s

Mot. Summ. J. at 27, ECF No. 59. Additionally, even if this Court can issue such an order, it

would not do so. Given the constitutionally required separation of powers of co-equal branches

of government, the Court, absent compelling circumstances not present here, will not insert itself

into the internal operations of an executive agency. Wright maintains a First Amendment right

to petition his government. If he wishes to bring his grievances about the handling of this matter

to political appointees within HHS and DOJ, he is free to do so directly.

9 For the reasons stated above, Wright is not entitled to request this Court to order

President Trump’s political appointees to personally review his case and decide whether they

would handle it differently than the previous administration. The Court will therefore deny

Wright’s motion for order.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, HHS’s Motion to Extend Stay (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED

and Wright’s Motion for Order (ECF No. 52) is DENIED. An order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.

Dated: July 31, 2025 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

10