- UID
- 172189
- 热情
- 22171
- 人气
- 38193
- 主题
- 47
- 帖子
- 2275
- 精华
- 3
- 积分
- 31377
- 分享
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 相册
- 0
- 好友
- 1
- 日志
- 0
- 在线时间
- 2813 小时
- 注册时间
- 2009-2-13
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 最后登录
- 2024-11-23
 
升级    56.89% - UID
- 172189
- 热情
- 22171
- 人气
- 38193
- 主题
- 47
- 帖子
- 2275
- 精华
- 3
- 积分
- 31377
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2009-2-13
|
本帖最后由 老北 于 2022-3-5 17:19 编辑
楼主链接的网站有个 法庭文件 版块，我看了看，这些文件好像是根据法庭的ORDER （2022年1月6日）公开的，而且今后还要不停的公开后续报告。此前，估计大众是没有途径看到文件内容的。 不知理解的对不对
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 美国地方法院
PHMPT, Plaintiff v. FDA, Defendant, No. 4:21-cv-1058-P
医学博士（原告） 起诉美国食品药品管理局（被告），编号4:21-cv-1058-P
ORDER 命令
This case involves the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Specifically, at issue is Plaintiff’s FOIA request seeking “[a]ll data and information for the Pfizer Vaccine enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) with the exception of publicly available reports on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System” from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). See ECF No. 1. As has become standard, the Parties failed to agree to a mutually acceptable production schedule; instead, they submitted dueling production schedules for this Court’s consideration. Accordingly, the Court held a conference with the Parties to determine an appropriate production schedule.[1] See ECF Nos. 21, 34.
本案涉及《信息自由法》（“FOIA”）。具体而言，本案的争议在于原告的信息自由法申请，要求食品和药物管理局（“FDA”）提供“21 C.F.R. § 601.51（e）中列举除了在疫苗不良事件报告系统已公开的辉瑞疫苗的所有数据和信息”。参考ECF第1号。作为标准，双方未能就提交时间表达成一致。相反，他们提交了对立的提交时间表供本院审议。因此，法院与双方举行了一次会议，以确定适当的提交时间表。[1] 参考ECF 第 21、34 号。
“Open government is fundamentally an American issue” – it is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue.[2] As James Madison wrote, “[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”[3] John F. Kennedy likewise recognized that “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”[4] And, particularly appropriate in this case, John McCain (correctly) noted that “[e]xcessive administrative secrecy . . . feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in the government.”[5]
“开放政府从根本上说是一个关乎全美国人的问题”——它既不是共和党的问题，也不是民主党的问题。[2] 正如詹姆斯·麦迪逊所写，“一个没有大众信息或获取信息的手段的民众政府，只不过是一场闹剧或悲剧的序幕；或者，也许两者兼之。知识将永远支配着无知：一个想要为自己做主的民族，必须用知识赋予的力量武装自己。[3] 约翰·肯尼迪同样意识到，“一个不敢让人民在公开市场上判断真假的国家，就是一个害怕人民的国家。”[4] 而且，在本案中特别恰当的是，约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）（正确地）指出，“过度的行政保密……助长了阴谋论，降低了公众对政府的信心。”[5]
Echoing these sentiments, “[t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, [which is] vital to the functioning of a democratic society.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1977). “FOIA was [therefore] enacted to ‘pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 175 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). And “Congress has long recognized that ‘information is often useful only if it is timely’ and that, therefore ‘excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to denial.’” Open Soc’y Just. Initiative v. CIA, 399 F. Supp. 3d 161, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 93-876, at 6271 (1974)). When needed, a court “may use its equitable powers to require an agency to process documents according to a court-imposed timeline.” Clemente v. FBI, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262, 269 (D.D.C. 2014).
与这些观点相呼应，“信息自由法的基本目的是确保公民的知情权，这对民主社会的运作至关重要”。美国劳工局诉罗宾斯轮胎和橡胶公司案437 U.S. 214, 242（1977）。“[因此]颁布信息自由法是为了‘刺破行政保密的面纱，将机构的行动置于公众的监督之下’。巴顿诉埃弗斯，598 F.3d 169, 175（第五巡回法院2010）（引用美国空军部诉罗斯， 425 U.S. 352, 361（1976））。以及“国会早就认识到，‘信息往往只有在及时的情况下才有用’，因此‘机构在回应中的过度拖延往往等同于拒绝’。”开放社会正义组织诉中央情报局， 399 F. Supp.3d 161, 165（纽约南区2019）（引自H.R. REP. NO. 93-876， at 6271 （1974））。必要时，法院“可以利用其衡平法权力，要求机构按照法院规定的时间表处理文件”。克里门特诉FBI， 71 F. Supp.3d 262, 269（哥伦比亚特区地区法院2014）。
Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA. See generally ECF Nos. 23, 30, 34. But, as expressed at the scheduling conference, there may not be a “more important issue at the Food and Drug Administration . . . than the pandemic, the Pfizer vaccine, getting every American vaccinated, [and] making sure that the American public is assured that this was not [] rush[ed] on behalf of the United States . . . .” ECF No. 34 at 46. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance.
在此，法院认识到该信息自由法请求可能给FDA带来“不适当的负担”挑战。一般见ECF第23、30、34号。但是，正如在日程安排会议上所表达的，在食品和药物管理局可能没有比大流行病、辉瑞公司的疫苗更重要的问题了，让每个美国人都接种疫苗，[并确保]美国公众确信这不是代表美国的仓促行为……”参考ECF No. 34 于46。因此，法院的结论是，这一信息自由法请求具有极其重要的公共意义。
“[S]tale information is of little value.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Court, agreeing with this truism, therefore concludes that the expeditious completion of Plaintiff’s request is not only practicable, but necessary. See Bloomberg, L.P. v. FDA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2007) (“[I]t is the compelling need for such public understanding that drives the urgency of the request.”). To that end, the Court further concludes that the production rate, as detailed below, appropriately balances the need for unprecedented urgency in processing this request with the FDA’s concerns regarding the burdens of production. See Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 284–85 (2nd Cir. 1991) (“[FOIA] emphasizes a preference for the fullest possible agency disclosure of such information consistent with a responsible balancing of competing concerns . . . .”).
“陈旧的信息是没有什么价值的。”佩恩公司诉美利坚合众国，837 F.2d 486, 494（华盛顿特区法院1988）。法院同意这一不言而喻的道理，因此得出结论，认为迅速完成原告的请求不仅是可行的，而且是必要的。见彭博有限合伙企业诉FDA，500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378（纽约南区2007年8月15日）（“正是对这种公众理解的迫切需求推动了该请求的紧迫性”）。为此，法院进一步得出结论，如下文所详述的提交率，适当地平衡了处理这一请求的空前紧迫性与FDA对提交负担的担忧。见哈尔彭诉FBI案，181 F.3d 279, 284-85（第二巡回法院1991）（“[信息自由法]强调，在负责任地平衡各种相互竞争的问题的前提下，倾向于让机构尽可能全面地披露此类信息……”
Accordingly, having considered the Parties’ arguments, filings in support, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS that:
因此，在考虑了双方的论点、支持性文件和适用法律后，法院命令：
1. The FDA shall produce the “more than 12,000 pages” articulated in its own proposal, see ECF No. 29 at 24, on or before January 31, 2022.
一、FDA应在2022年1月31日或之前提供其自身提案中阐述的“12,000多页文件”，见ECF第29号第24页。
2. The FDA shall produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.
二、FDA应以每30天55,000页的速度提供剩余文件，第一次提供应在2022年3月1日或之前完成，直到提供完毕。
3. To the extent the FDA asserts any privilege, exemption, or exclusion as to any responsive record or portion thereof, FDA shall, concurrent with each production required by this Order, produce a redacted version of the record, redacting only those portions as to which privilege, exemption, or exclusion is asserted.
三、如果FDA对任何对应记录或其部分主张任何特权，豁免或排除，FDA应在本命令所要求的每次提供的同时，出示记录的编辑版本，仅编辑那些主张特权，豁免或排除的部分。
4. The Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report detailing the progress of the rolling production by April 1, 2022, and every 90 days thereafter.[6]
四、双方应在2022年4月1日前提交一份联合状况报告，详细说明滚动提交的进展情况，此后每隔90天提交一次。[6]
SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2022.
本命令于2022年1月6日发布。
以上是网上看到的，译文版权归原译者所有（文章没标注译者）。法庭裁决原文链接如下
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ORDER_2022_01_06.pdf
后面的一些法庭ORDER看起来是对辉瑞和FDA额抗辩的裁决，
应该没有推翻这个ORDER的裁决
不过 我没细看其他文件，也没研究过美国司法制度，有懂行的请指正
|
|
发表于 2022-3-4 16:55:00
分享
收藏
