1



# In the U n it e d S tat e s C ou rt o f F ede ral Clai ms

OFFICE OF S P ECI A L MAS T ERS

No. 06

- 2 2 7V

(E

- F iled Nov e m

b er 2 7, 2013; Re

- issued for Redaction December 3, 2013)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TO BE P UBL I SHED

S AEID B. MOJABI and PARIVASH VAHABI, *

as pare n ts a nd legal rep r esentat i ves *

of their m i nor son, R.B.M., * Special M a ster

* H a m ilton

- Fiel d m a n

*

P etitioner, * Petitioners’ A m e n ded Motion

* f or Po s t

- Jud g m ent Rel i ef P ursuant

* to RCFC Appen d ix B Rule 36

SECRE T ARY O F H E ALTH * and RC F C Rule 60;

AND H U MAN S ERV I CE S

, * E

- Gover n ment Act of 2002

*

*

Responde n t. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

RULING AND ORDER DENY I NG P ETITI O NERS’ AM E NDED

PO S T

- J U DGM E NT MOTION FOR REL I E F 1

Thi s m atte r i s be f or e t h e Cour t o n Petitione r s’ A m ende d Post

- Jud g m en t Motion

f o r Reli e f

, f

ile d o n Oc t obe r 8

, 2013

, requesti ng tha t certai n writte n o pinion s be

re m ove d f

ro m th e Uni t ed S tates C ourt of F ed e ral Cla i m s’ website. For the re a sons set

f orth below, Petitio n ers’ motion is DEN I ED

.

1 When this decision was originally issued, the parties were notified that the decision

would be posted in accordance with the E

- G o ver n m ent Act of 2002, Pu b

. L. No. 107

- 347,

§ 205, 1 16 Stat. 2899, 29 1 3 (cod if ied as a m ended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)).

The parties were also notified that they could seek redaction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

12(d)(4)(B); Vaccine Rule 18(b). Petitioners made a timely request for redaction and this

decision is being reissued with the name of the minor child red acted to initials. With the

exception of this change, a change to this footnote, and minor clerical changes, the re

- issued

decision is the same as the one originally filed.2 BACK G ROUND

On, March 23, 2006, S aeid B. Mojabi and Parivash Vahabi (“ P etitioners”) f iled a

petition f or co m pensat i on, as the p arents a n d l egal represe n tatives of their m inor son,

R .B.M.

, un d er t he National Childhood Vaccine I nju r y Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S

. C. §

300aa

- 10 et se q

. (the “ Vaccine Ac t ”)

. 2 Petiti o ners speci f ical l y alleged that R .B.M. h a d a

Table Inju r y 3 encepha l opat h y as a result of t h e measles

- m u m ps

- rubella (“ M MR”)

v a cc i nation R .B.M. receiv e d o n Dec e m ber 19, 20 0 3. P etition at 1. In the alternat i ve,

Peti t io n ers also all e ged that R .B.M. su ff ered f rom aut is m “ as a c u mulative result of his

receipt of each and eve r y vacci na tion betwe e n March 2 5

, 2003 and Februa r y 2 2, 2005

. ”

P etition at 1

- 2.

On M a y 2 9, 2009, a f

ter reviewing n u m er o us m e dical reco r ds and a f fidavits

su b m itted b y Peti t ione r s, and con d ucting t wo s eparate f act hearings, C hief Special Master

C a m pbell

- S m it h 4 issued a Revised Ruling Reg a rding F act u al F in d ings. Revised Ruling,

ECF No. 71. On Aug u st 17, 20 0 9, the e v ide n ce of record was su p pl e m e nted b y

additional a ff

idavits f rom p h y sici a ns who ex a m i ned R .B.M. duri n g his st a y in Iran. P et’r’s

Exs. 29 & 30, E C F No. 75. On S ept e m ber 3, 2009, the f

o r m er s p eci a l master is s ued an

Order Rega r ding W e i g ht Accorded to A ff idavits Provid e d In S upport of Petitioners’ Cla i m

,

m a king o b serv a tions about all of the f iled a ff idavits in this ca s e and not d i sturbi n g the

earlier f actual f

ind i ngs. Orde r

, ECF No. 8 3.

P etitioners had al s o w a nted to f urther sup p l e ment the reco r d with a s u bpoena

requiring a t reating p h y sician to a n swer wr i tt e n questio n s. Mo t ion f or S ubpoena at 1,

August 1 3

, 2009, ECF No. 73. P etitione r ’s M otion f or S ubpoena w a s denied, a n d the

f or m er spec i al m ast e r i ssued a rev i sed ord e r w ith backgr o und in f o r m a tion to pr o vide

context f or her ruli n g. Order, Au g ust 25, 20 0 9, ECF N o. 77. On A u gust 26, 2 009,

Petitioners f

iled an Ob

j ection to P ublic D i scl o sure, a m ot i on req u est i ng that n a mes and

2 The Na t ional Vaccine Inju r y C o m pe n sation P rogr a m i s set f orth in Part 2 of the

National Childh o od V accine Inju r y Act of 1986, P u b

. L. No. 99

- 6 60, 100 Stat. 3755,

codi f ied as a m end e d, 42 U.S. C .A. § 300aa

- 10

- § 300a a

- 34 ( 2006 ) (Vaccine Act). All

ci t ations in this decision t o individual secti o ns of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S

. C.A. § 300a a.

3 The Vaccine Inju r y T a ble “lists t he vaccin e s c overed und e r the Ac t ; d escribes each

vaccin e ' s c o mpe n sable, adve r se side e ff ects; and in d icates h ow soon a f ter vaccination those

s i de ef f ects should f

irst m a n i f est the m s e lves. C la i mants who s how th a t a listed in j u r y f irst

m a n i f ested itself at the app r opriate t i m e are pr i ma f acie entitled to c o m pensat i on.” B r ue s ewitz

v. W y e th L L C

, U

. S

., 131 S

. Ct. 10 6 8, 10 7 3

– 74 (20 1 1) (citi n g 42 U.S.C. §§ 30 0 aa

– 1 1 (c)(1)

, 300a a

– 13(a)( 1 ) ( A)

, 300aa

– 14(a) ; 42 C

. F .R. § 1 0 0.3 ).

4 This case was rea s si g ned f rom the former special master to the

u nde r signed pursu a nt to V a ccine Rule 3(d) on S e pt e m ber 23, 2013. E C F No. 1 31.3

identi f y ing in f or m a tion be redacted f

r o m the m o st recent order, as w ell as “all p a st (if

possible), a nd f

uture o r ders, decis i ons, and s i m i l ar doc u ments.” Ob j ection, E C F No. 7 8.

Chief S pecial Mas t er C ampbell

- S mith gr a nted this redact i on requ e st with respect to the

m o st recent order, a nd a redacted ve r sion w a s issued on August 26, 2 010 under t he

caption “J O HN D OE/ 4 2 and JA N E DOE / 42, a s legal repr e sentativ e s of their m i nor son,

MINOR J OHN D OE/ 4 2. ” 5 Order, Order A tta c hment, E C F Nos. 79, 7 9

- 1. Since Vaccine Act

petiti o ners on l y h a ve a f

ourteen

- d a y per io d within w hich to req u est redactio n

, the

f or m er spec i al m ast e r d enied as un ti m e l y t he r equest to r e dact past o r ders as unt i me l y

. Order at 2, August 26, 2009, E C F No. 7 9. P e t itioners’ re q uest to pr o spective l y r e dact

f uture issued orders w a s also deni e d; Peti t ion e rs were in f o r m ed th a t an y motion f

or

redaction must be c on s idered with respect t o i ndividual doc u m e n ts a nd that Pe t itioners

had the res p onsibi l i t y f

or m aking a renewed motion f or redaction.

On October 20, 2 0 09, t he f or m er s pecial m a s t er issued a r uling t r ans f erring

P etitioners’ auti s m all e gations to the O mnibus Auti s m P roceedi n gs, a nd de n y ing

P etitioners’ Table I nju r y e ncephal o pat h y cl ai m due to l a ck of su ff ic i ent evidence. Ruling,

E CF No. 84. T hat s a m e d a y

, Petit i on e rs f iled a t i m e l y m o tion to redact t h is ruling, wh i ch

th e y aga i n titled an “ Objecti o n t o P ublic D isclos u re.” Objection, October 20, 2009, ECF

N o. 85. The f

or m er special m a ster granted this moti o n, Order, O c tober 22, 2009, ECF N o.

86, and a redact e d ruling w as reissued on Oct o ber 22, 2009. Rulin g

, ECF No. 87.

On Ju l y 3 0, 2010, Peti t ioners so u ght to i ntro d uce previo u s l y un o bta i nable m edi c al

records to a dvance t h e i r Table Inju r y ence p ha l opat h y cla i m. Re s pon s e to Order t o S how

Cause, E C F No. 9 6. T he f or m er s pecial m a s t er agreed to a llow P e ti t ioners addi t ional time

to s ub m it th e se medical recor d s. Orde r

, August 1 8

, 2010, ECF No. 97. O n Octo b er 28,

2010, P etitio n ers f

iled new m e d ical reco rd s concerni n g R .B.M.'s t r ea t m ent in I ran. Pet’rs’

Ex. 31

- 34, ECF No. 98. P etitione r s su p pl e m ented t hese m e di c al records w ith af f idavits

f rom R .B.M.’ s f a m i l y m e mbers on M a y 5

, 2011. P et’rs’ Ex. 36

- 42, E C F No.

104. Bas e d on the new m e dical re c ords and a ff idavits, Respond e nt f

iled a Vaccine Rul e 6

4(c) suppl e mental r e p o rt agreeing t hat R .B.M. h ad su ff ered a Table In

j u r y

, and

r ec o m m end i ng c o mpe n sation f or R .B.M.'s v acc i ne

- related i n ju r y

. R es p ’t’s Report at 3

- 5,

June 9, 2 0 11 ECF No. 106. Acco r ding to Re s pondent, R .B.M. had “e n cephalitis w ithin f ive

to f i f teen d a y s f

ollowi n g receipt of the Dec em ber 19, 20 0 3 M M R va c cine,” a Tab l e

Inju r y und e r 42 C

. F.R. § 100.3(a)( I II)(B). Re s p’t’s Repo r t at 3, E CF No. 106.

5 As of Dec e m

ber 1 2

, 2 010, the J o hn Doe and Jane Doe s y s t e m of re d action is no

longer use d

. Under the current gu i delines, f ol l owing a t i me l y re q uest f or redaction, the n a m e

of a minor w i ll b e redacted d o wn to t he initials. R edaction P r o cedures,

http://w w w.usc f

c.usc o urts.gov/r e daction

- pro c edures.

6 The “Vacci n e Rule s ” a re set f orth in App e nd i x B of the Rules of the United

S tates Co u rt of Federal Cla i m s, as a m end e d t h rough Au g ust 30, 201 3

.4

Based on a l l of the ev i dence of record, Re s p o ndent f iled a “Pro ff

er on an Award of

C o m pensa t ion” on De c ember 12, 2 012. P ro f fer, ECF N o. 121. On Dec e m ber 1 3, 2012,

this pro ff ered award w as accepted a nd a dec is ion was i s sued aw a rdi n g Petition e rs

$969,474

. 91 f

or the b e ne f

it of R .B.M.

, alo n g w i th $20,00 0 .00 f or unre i m b ursable e xpenses

and $480. 3 4 to sa t is f y a S tate of Cali f ornia M edicaid lien. Decis i on at 2

- 3, E C F No. 1 22.

Pursuant t o Vacci n e R ule 11(a), P etitione r s a nd Respo n dent agr e ed not to seek review of

the decision and j u d g ment was ent e red on De c ember 17, 2 012. J oint Notice, Dec. 13,

2012, E C F No. 1 23; J u d g m ent, E CF No. 124. No reque s t f or redact i on was f

iled.

Petitioners were aw a r d ed an addit i onal $ 6 8,7 1 0.50 in at t orn e y ’s f ees and costs.

Jud g m ent on Att o rn e y ’ s F ees, A p r. 5, 2 0 13, E CF No. 1 29. Ag a in, no request f or

redaction w a s f

iled.

Nine m on t hs a f

ter the e ntitl e m ent decision iss u ed, on Sep te m ber 9

, 2 0 13,

Petitioner f

iled a P ost

- J ud g m ent Motion f or R elief pursuant to V a cc i ne Rule 36 and R u le

60(b)(1) a n d (b)(6) of the Rules f or the U n ited S tates C o urt of Feder a l Cla i m s ( “ RCF C ”).

Motion, E CF No. 130. On Sept e mber 30, 20 1 3, a digital l y

- record e d status con f erence

was condu c ted to a d dr e ss this m o tion. Order, Oct. 3, 20 1 3, ECF No. 133. F ol l owing t he

status con f

erence, P e ti t ioners cont a cted the u n dersigned’s ch a m be r s t o raise addi t ional

issues f or consider a tion and were t h ere f ore or d ered to a m e n d their m o tion f or relief f rom

jud g m ent b y Oct o ber 1 1, 2013. Order, O c t. 3, 2013, E C F No. 1 33. On October 8, 20 1 3,

P etitioners f

iled an A mended Pos t

- Jud g ment Motion f or Relief req u esting that the

undersign e d not p o st t h eir m otion or a n y r e sul t ant order on the U n ited States C o urt of

F ederal Cl ai m s’ ( “ US C F C ”) web s ite, and a lso requesting t hat the un d ersigned r e move the

f ollowing written opin i ons f rom t he US C FC w ebsite:

• The M a y 2 9, 2009, “R e vised Rul i ng Reg a rdi n g F actual F indin g s;”

• The S ept e mber 3, 2 00 9

, “Order R e garding W e ight Accor d ed to A ff idavits

Provided I n Sup p ort of Petitioners’ Cla i m;”

• The Dec e m

b er 13, 2 0 1 2, “Decisi o n Awar d ing D a m ages.”

A m ended Motion at 1 0

, ECF No. 134.

LEGAL S TA N DARD

Under Vacc i ne Rule 3 6 (a), a par t y m a y seek r e lief f rom a jud g m e n t or order pur s uant

to RCFC 60. T h e m ot i on f or such relief is re f

erred to the special ma s ter, to wh o m the5

vaccine cla i m had be e n assigned p revious l y

, if she is sti l l availab l e, f or a written r uling.

Vaccine Ru l e 36(a)

- ( b )

. Because t here is l i ttle case law in t erpreti n g RC F C 6 0

, and

because R C F C 60 is i d entical to R ule 60 of t h e Federal R ules of Civ i l P rocedure

( F R C P ), see W

ebster v. Unit e d States

, 93 Fed.Cl. 676, FN1 (20 1 0), the u nder s igned

cons i ders instructive decisio n s i n terpreting F RCP 60 in t he ana l y sis that f ollow s

.

Under R C FC 60 ( b), “t h e court m a y relieve a p ar t y or its l e gal repr e s e ntative f r o m a

f inal jud g m ent, or d er, or proceedi n g.” Be f ore granting re l ief pursua n t to a Rule 60(b)

m o tion, t h e review i ng decision

- m a ker m a y c o nsider f irst whether the under l y

ing cla i m

i s a legal l y te n able one. S ee Curtis v. United Sta t es

, 61 Fed. Cl. 5 1 1, 5 1 2

– 13 (20 0 4). In

Curtis

, the judge r equi r ed evidence t hat the c l a im was m e r itorio u s 7 prior to the gr a nt of

Rule 60(b) relief to av o id the “ e m p t y exerc i se” of vacating the ju dg m e nt. Id. (qu o ting

Teamster s

, L ocal No. 5 9 v. Superl i ne T r a nsp. Co

., 953 F .2d 17, 20 ( 1 st Cir.19 9 2)).

Under R C FC 60 ( b)(1), relief m a y be granted f or “ m istake, inadve r te n ce, surprise, or

excusable n e glect.” U nder RC F C 60(b) ( 6) t h e court m a y vacate a ju d g m ent f or “a n y

other reason that j u sti f

ies relie f .” RC F C 60(b ) (6). To ob t ain relief f rom jud g ment

und e r Rule 60(b) ( 6), ho w eve r

, a showi n g of “extrao r dina r y circ u mstanc e s” i s required.

Kennedy v. Sec '

y of H e alth & H u man Se r vs

., 9 9 F ed. Cl. 535, 5 48 (2 0 11) (citing

Ackermann v. Unit e d S tates

, 340 U. S

. 1 9 3, 2 0 2 (1950)). Rule 6 0 (b) ( 6) pe r m its t he

decision

- m a ker to g ra n t relief f rom jud g m e nt t o a par t y in circ u m s ta n ces f rom w hich a

“grave m isc a rriage of j ustice” wo u ld othe r wi s e result. Id

. at 540 (q u oting Uni t ed Stat e s

v. Beggerly

, 524 U

. S. 3 8, 47 (19 9 8)). Mo r eov e r, Rule 60 ( b)(6) m a y b e used “to v acate

jud g m ents whene v er s u ch action is approp r iate to acc o m p l ish jus t ice.” Freeman v. Sec ' y

of Health & Hum a n S e rvs

., 35 F e d. Cl. 2 80, 2 84 (1996) ( citing S olit r on Devices, Inc. v.

United St a tes

, 16 Cl.C t

. 561, 564 (1989)) (gr a nting a req u est f or reli e f because the

“petitioners appear t o h ave been m i sled b y the i r attorn e y ” a nd there f o r e “lost an

opportuni t y to ha v e th e ir case decid e d based u pon its m e r its”). But g eneral l y

, rel i ef will

not be gran t ed if “subs t antial righ t s of the par t y h ave not been ha r m e d b y the j u d g m ent

or order.” Ve s sels v. S e c ' y of Health & Hu m an S ervs.

, 65 F ed. Cl. 563, 568 (2005)

(citing Curtis v. United S tates

, 61 Fed. C l. 511, 512 ( 2004)).

Important l y

, Rules 60 ( b)(1) and 6 0(b)(6) a r e m u tual l y e xclusive. P i oneer Inves t ment

Servs. Co. v. Bru n swi c k Ass. L P., 507 U

. S

. 3 8 0, 393 (1 9 92)(citat i ons omitted). A

m ov a nt seeking relief f

rom j u d gment pr e mised on in a dvertence a n d neglect c annot

obta i n relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well. See St e vens v. Mi l ler

, 676 F

. 3d 62, 67

– 68 (2d

Cir.2 0 12) (citing Kl a

prott v. Uni t ed States

, 3 35 U. S

. 601 (1949)).

The E

– Go v er n m ent A c t instructs a ll f ederal c o urts to est a blish a n d m a intain a

we b site with “ [ a]ccess to the s u bstance of all writt e n o pinions i s sued b y the c ourt,

7 The Court of F ederal Cla i m s br o ad l y de f ined a m eritori o us cla i m as one that

“states a leg a l l y ten a b l e cause of action.” C u r tis

, 61 Fe d

. Cl. 5 11 at 5 13 (quoti n g Stelco

Holding C o. v. U

n ited States

, 44 Fed. C l

. 703, 709 (199 9 )).6

regard l ess of whether su c h opin i ons are to be p u blished in t he o ff icial court repor t er.”

E

– Go v er n m ent Act of 2002, Pub

. L. N o

. 107

– 347

, § 205( a )(5), 116 Stat 2 899, 2 913

( c odi f ied as a m ended at 44 U.S

. C. § 3 5 01 ( 2 006) ). The Judicial C o n f erence has

de f ined “written op i nions” a s “a n y doc u ment is s ued b y a judge

. .. that s ets f orth a

reas o ned expl an ation f

or a court ' s decision,” a nd has giv e n the autho r ing ju d ge t he

respons i bili t y f

or d e te r m ining what constitutes a writt e n o p inion. See Access t o C ourt

Info r mation Ever Expanding

, THE THIRD B RAN C H (N e wsletter of the F ed e ral

Courts), J u l y 20 0 7, av a ilable at http://w w w.uscou r ts.g o v/News/T h eThir d Bra n ch/07

-

07

- 0 1/Acces s _t o _Court_ In f or m atio n _Ever

_ Ex p anding.as p x (repor t ing the de f inition);

see also Report of the Proceedin g s of the Ju d icial Conf e rence of the United St a tes 7

( Mar. 1 5, 2005), a vailable at

http:// w ww.us c ourts

. gov/Federa l Court s /Jud i cialCon f erence / P roce e dings/

P roceedin g s.aspx ? doc

= /uscourts / F ederal C our t s/judcon f /proceedi n gs / 2005

- 03. p df

(approving the de f

init i on).

To protect t he priva c y of petitioners, the Vac c ine Rules a llow a p etit i oner 14 d a y s to

request reda c tion “of an y in f or m a t ion f

urnis h ed b y that p ar t y : (1) th a t is a trade s ecret or

c o m m ercial or f

inanci a l in subst a nce and i s pr i vileged or c on f idential; or (2) that

i ncludes m e dical f

iles or s i milar f

iles, the disclosu r e of which wo u ld cons t itute a clear l y

unwarranted invasi o n o f priva c y .” Vaccine R ule 18(b). This ru l e p r ovides l i mited

guidance, b ut the f act u al dete r m in a tion ab o ut what in f o r m ation m a y be redacted

“ a ppears to be...., at least in the f irst instance, [ commit t ed] to the d i scretion of the

special master” L angland. v. Sec’y of H ealth & H u man S e rvs.

, No. 07

- 3 6 V, 2011 W L

802695 at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. F e b 3, 2011). U n der c o mmon law redacti o n was

r a r el y a vailable, and there was “a strong pr e s u m ption f avoring pub l ic access to j udicial

r e c ords and proceeding s .” Id. at *7 (citing Ni x on v. Warn e r Commc '

ns

, 435 U.S. 589,

598

– 99 (1978) ). T he Vacci n e Act perpetu a tes that st r ong pres u mption. A s p ecial

m aster ’ s discretion t o order r ed a ction is ve r y l i m it e d; t h e par t y requ e sting r e d a ction

“ m u s t satis f y a substantial burden to d emonstrate a right t o r e daction.” I d

. at *1 1

. P ursuant to Vaccine Rule 18, t h e identi t y of parties can n ot be r e da c ted. How e ver, to

p r ot e ct the ident i t y of m i nors, a n d to ac k now l edge that an action h as been undert a ken

on th e ir behalf without the possib i li t y of their m e a ning f ul consen t

, V accine Rule 16

pro v id e s that “if a petition is f iled on behalf of a m i n or, the capt i on m a y in c lude on l y

t he m in o r’s i nitials.” V a ccine Rule 16(b).

DISCU S SION

“Rule 60(b) allows a p ar t y to seek relief f rom a f inal jud g m ent, a n d r equest

reopening of his ca s e.” Gonzalez v. Cro s by

, 5 45 U.S. 5 24

, 528 (200 5 ). P etitio n ers are

satis f ied with the j ud g m e nt render e d and h a v e not reque s ted that the undersign e d

vacate jud g m ent a nd reop e n t heir case

— t h e y are m e re l y seeking to have th i s jud g m ent

be m a d e less publi c l y avail a ble. RCFC 6 0(b) is t here f ore inapplica b le to P e tit i oners’

requ e sts.7

P etitioners have re q ue s ted that thr e e doc u men t s be r e m ov e d f rom the USCFC

website: (1) the M a y 2 9, 2009 R e vised Ruling Regarding Factual Fi n dings, (2) t he

Sept e m ber 3, 2009 Or d er Regardi n g A ff idavits, and (3) t he Dec e mb e r 13, 2012 Decisi o n

Awarding d a m age s

. A m e nded M otion at 10, ECF No. 134. In a ddit i on, P etiti o ners’

request that the u n d ers i gned re f rain f rom p o st i ng the m o t ion un d er c o nsideration, and a n y

order ruling on the mo t ion under c onsider a tio n

. Petition e rs have ma d e these requ e sts

because th e y have h a d the m is f ortune of being f

requent l y c ontacted b y m e m bers of the

m e dia who m

istak e n l y believe th e y were c om pensated f or their al t e r native auti s m

allegation when Pe t iti o ners were ac t ual l y c om pensated f or a Table In

ju r y encephalopa t h y

. A m e nded Mot i on at 3

- 6, E CF No. 1 34. Un f ortu n ate l y f

or Petitioner s

, under the E

Gover n m e nt Act, the unders i gned must post all “wr i tten opinions ”

— a n y f iling that the

unde r si g ned dete r m i nes to c on t ain a reason e d expl a na t ion f or the undersign e d’s acti o n

—

on the U S CFC w ebsite

. 8

All of the previou s l y p osted doc u ments t hat P etitioners w ould l i ke r e m o ved f r o m

the USC F C web s ite w e re dete r m in e d to be wr i tten opini o ns und e r the E

- Gover n ment

Act. Each of these wri t ten opini o ns incl u ded a f ootnote on the f

ront p age, s i m ilar to the

f irst f ootnote contained in this or d er, indi c ati n g that th e y would be p o sted on the

USC F C website and r e m ind P e t itioners th a t th e y h a d 1 4 d a y s to r e quest r e dac t ion be f ore

the entire opin i on bec a me public l y a v ailable. The undersign e d m ust abi d e b y the E

Gover n m e n t Act

— nei t her RC F C 60(b), nor an y other C ourt of F ede r al Cla i m s Rule or

Vaccine Ru l e, gives a s pecial m ast e r author i t y to contrave n e the E

- G o ver n m ent A ct.

The undersign e d s i m

p l y d o es not have the aut h ori t y t o r e m ove “writt e n o pinions” f r o m

the USC F C website. P etit i oners’ requ e sts to r e m o ve the M a y 29, 20 0 9 R evised Ru l ing

Regarding Factual Fin d ings, the S ept e m b e r 3, 2009 Order Regard i ng Af f idavits, and the

Dec e m ber 1 3, 2012 D e cision Aw a rding Da m a ges f rom t h e US C FC w ebsite are

th e re f ore DENIED

.

The E

- Gov e r n m ent Act is inappli c able to t he c urrent m ot i on und e r c o nsideration

because it d oes not co n tain a reaso n ed expl a n a tion of a judicial o ff icer. However, to

protect the p riva c y of Vaccine Act P etitio n er s

, all docket e d f ilings a r e kept under seal a n d

are not pub l ic l y ava i la b le via P A C E R 9 or a n y o ther sourc e

— on l y t he “ court pers o nnel and

counsel of record” m a y access t hese se n si t ive f ilings. Supp le m e n t (Electronic Case Filing

P r o cedure) a t ¶ 26, RC F C Appe n dix B; see also 4 2 U.S

. C. § 3 00aa

- 12(d) ( 4)(A). No

8 See http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/

.

9 “Public A c cess to Co u rt Electronic Recor d s ( P ACER) i s an ele c tron i c public

access servi c e that al lo ws users t o obtain case and docket i n f or m a t ion f

rom f ederal

appellate, d i strict a n d b ankrupt c y c ourts, a n d t he PAC E R Case L oca t or via the

I n ternet. P ACER i s provi d ed b y the f ederal [ j]udicia r y i n keeping with its c o m m i t ment

to providing public a c cess to court in f o r m ati o n v i a a centraliz e d service

. ” PACER,

http:// www.pacer

. gov/ (l a st v isited Nov e mber 1 8, 2 0 13).8

m otion f rom a Va c cine Act Petitioner wo u ld ever be p osted o n t h e U S CFC websit e

. According l y

, the r e qu e st to not p ost the c urre n t motion u nder co n sid e ration is D EEM E D

MOOT

.

This order c ontains a r e asoned exp l anation f or the unders i gned’s a c ti o n in

response to Petiti o ners’ A m ended P ost

- J u d g ment Motion f or Relie f

, there f

ore, it is a

“written op i nion” t hat m

u st be p o sted on the USC F C website i n ac c ordance wi t h the E

Gover n m e n t Act. P eti t ioners’ req u est that the undersign e d not p o st an y order th a t

resul t s f rom the cu r rent m o ti o n under co n siderat i on i s there f ore DENI E D. However,

p ursuant to f

ootnote 1 of this o r der, P etiti o ners m a y r e quest redact i on of this order.

Petitioners’ on l y a vail a ble possib l e protec t ion f rom m edia attenti o n w ould have

been a m ot i on to r e dact under Rule 18(b) a nd a motion t o redact R .B.M.’ s n a m e to

initials pursuant to Rule 1 6(b). P etitione r s have r e qu e sted redacti o n in the p a st and it h a s

been granted. O bjectio n s, A ugust 26, 2009, O ctob e r 20, 2009, ECF Nos. 7 8, 85; Ord e rs,

August 2 6

, 2009, Oct o ber 22, 20 0 9, ECF No s

. 79, 86. I n addit i on, e ve r y posted

doc u m ent t hat Pet i tio n er has requ e sted be r em oved f rom t he U S CFC website co n tained a

f ootnote r e m inding P e t itioners th a t th e y h a d 1 4 d a y s to r e quest r e dac t ion be f ore the

entire opinion be ca m e p u blic l y a vailable. Howe v er, Petitioners did not req u est redaction

at the time, and “a r e NOT r e questing t h at the s ubje c t doc u m en t s be red a ct e d” now.

A mended Motion at f

n. 1, E CF N o. 134 ( e mphasis i n or i ginal). If th e y were m o ving f or

redaction, it would be unt i m e l y a nd there f ore denied, b e cause the pa r ties ha v e on l y 14

d a y s f ollowing the iss u ance of an opinion to r e que s t redaction u nder R ule 18(b).

Had a t i m e l y moti o n f

or redaction b een m a d e, the scope of the u n der s igned’s

redaction p o wers is l i mited and co u ld not f ul f ill the reques t s m ade in Petitioner’s

A m ended Post

- J u d g m e nt Motion f or Rel i e f

. R .B.M.'s n a me wou l d h a ve been reda c ted

to his initials pursu a nt to Rule 16(b), and P e titi o ners could have att e m p ted to over co m e

the substantial burden of demonstrat i ng the r i ght t o redact the medical re cords, alth o ugh

the m e dical reco r ds are c ru cial to the b asis of the decision in this ca s e, a nd m ere

u n wanted m e dia atten t ion do e s n ot constit u te a clear l y u nwarranted i nvasion of priva c y

. S e e Langland. v. Sec’y of H ealth & H u man S e rvs.

, No. 07

- 3 6 V, 2011 W L 802695 at

*11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. M str. F eb 3, 2011) (de n y i n g a request f

or redaction, e xcept f

or the

n a m e of the m in o r child). H owever, no a m ount of redaction w o uld ha v e r e m o ved the

initial alternative a uti s m a l le g ation or the f act that an award of c o m pensa t i o n was

m ad e

— the basis f

or the m edia ’ s misundersta n ding a n d m i sinterpretat i on.9

As discu s sed abo v e, P e titioner’s A m ende d P o st

- Judg m en t Motio n f o r Relie f is

DENIED IN I T S E NT IRETY.

IT IS S O OR D ERED.

Lisa H a m i l ton

- F ie ld m a n

Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

S pecial M a ster