# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-312V (Not to be Published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KATIE LAMARE, * * Filed: October 30, 2015 Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Motion for Redaction; HUMAN SERVICES, * Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”) * Vaccines; Unwarranted Invasion Respondent. * of Privacy; Supplemental Motion. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paul Dannenberg , Paul S. Dannenberg Law Offices , Huntington, VT, for Petitioner.

Lynn Ricciardella , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.



### Order Granting Petitioner’s Supplemental Motion For Redaction 1

On May 11, 2012, Katie Lamare filed this ac tion seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (t he “Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 2 Pet. (ECF No. 1); Am. Pet., filed Mar. 11, 2013 (ECF No. 24). 3 Petitioner alleges that she suffered a variety of

1 Because this order contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended, 44 U.S.C. § 3 501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published order’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each pa rty has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy .” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, th e whole order will be available to the public. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Chil dhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758 (codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2006)) [her einafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2006).

3 The original Petition that Ms. Lamare filed generally allege d that she had been injured as a result of her receipt of the HPV/Gardasil vaccinations, and the case was then assi gned to Special Master Moran. Pet. at 2. Petitioner2 injuries after receiving a series of human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations between May of 2009 and February of 2010. Am. Pet. at 1.

In the fall of 2014, Ms. Lamare motioned for an interim fee award on behalf of her attorney, Paul Dannenberg, but I denied that request by a decision dated December 8, 2014 (ECF No. 63) (“Interim Fees Decision”). Petiti oner subsequently requested, pursuan t to Vaccine Rule 18(b), that I redact portions of the Interim Fees Decision refe rencing her name. Mot. for Redaction, filed Dec. 22, 2014 (ECF No. 64) (“Redaction Mot.”). After cons ideration of the parties’ briefs, I denied Petitioner’s motion by an Order dated February 27, 2015 (ECF No. 68) (“Re daction Order”). Ms.
Lamare then moved for reconsideration of the Redaction Order, and in so doing provided some additional substantiation for her request. ECF N o. 69. I denied the motion for reconsideration in an Order filed on May 22, 2015, indicating that Ms. Lamare had still not established grounds for redaction. ECF No. 79. Petitioner, however, had previously filed a motion for review on March 27, 2015. ECF No. 71. The United States Court of Fe deral Claims upheld my decision to deny Petitioner’s redaction request in an order filed on July 29, 2015. ECF No. 85.

During a status conference in this case on August 26, 2015, I invited Petitioner to provide additional support for her request for redaction of the Interim Fees Decision (and to renew her motion for redaction), and Respondent indicated th at (under such circumstances) she would have no objection to redaction of the Interim F ees Decision. Accordingly, on October 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsid eration (now requesting only that Petitioner’s
name be substituted with her initials in said deci sion), arguing that the decision “contains medical and personal information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of [P]etitioner’s privacy pursuant to Rule 18(b).” ECF No. 89. Along wi th the renewed motion, Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit describing in further detail her symptoms, how they impact her and what
effects disclosure would have on her and he r future employment (Pet’r’s Ex. 38).

Analysis

Ms. Lamare claims that she “received HPV/Gardasil vaccinations on May 18, 2009, August 18, 2009, and February 9, 2010,” and that sh e was subsequently injured. Am. Pet. at 1-2. Ms.
Lamare has now offered a second affidavit in an a ttempt to substantiate why disclosure of those injuries in the Interim F ees Decision is harmful to her, and it significantly strengthened her grounds for seeking redaction. Accordingly, upon review of the information provided, I find that Ms. Lamare’s Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration re medies the deficiencies in her argument that caused me to deny the original Redaction Motion (as well as the Motion for Reconsideration). Ms.
Lamare has now demonstrated that the Interim F ees Decision contains information the disclosure
of which rises to the level of an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

subsequently filed an Amended Petition (as per Special Master Moran’s Decem ber 11, 2012, order (ECF No. 15)) specifying the injuries that she alleges were caused by her receipt of the vaccina tions in question. Am. Pet. at 1.3 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established sufficient grounds for redaction
of the Interim Fees D ecision, and I therefore GRANT the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, the Interim Fees Decision 4 will be redacted so that the heading and body of the decision reflect only Petitioner’s initials.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

4 I will also similarly redact my Order Denying Petitioner’ s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 79) and my Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Redaction (ECF No. 68), as bot h orders contain the same kind of specific information regarding Petitioner’s alleged vaccine-related injuries.