In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

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

CHELSEA BOSSENBROEK, * 

 * No. 17-122V 

 Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran 

v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Filed: September 4, 2018 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 * Discovery, social media 

 Respondent. *

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

PUBLISHED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH1

The parties dispute whether the petitioner, Chelsea Bossenbroek, is required to produce 

her social media posts. For the reasons explained below, she is. 

Ms. Bossenbroek alleges that the administration of the flu vaccine, on October 22, 2015, 

caused her ongoing shoulder injury that “negatively impacts” her ability to care for her children. 

Pet. at 1; exhibit 18 at 1 (petitioner’s supplemental affidavit). Although she is alleging an injury 

that started in October 2015 and has continued to the present, Ms. Bossenbroek has no medical 

records that document the status of her shoulder between early December 2015 and early January 

2017. Resp’t’s Rep. at 3. The lack of medical records for this time period constrains Ms. 

Bossenbroek’s ability to establish that the vaccine-caused injury lasted more than six months. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D). 

The parties discussed the lack of contemporaneously created medical records in a status 

conference. To help substantiate Ms. Bossenbroek’s claim, respondent requested the production 

of her social media posts, from January 2015 until present. Order, issued May 2, 2018. 

Ms. Bossenbroek sought relief from this order. She argued that requiring the production 

of her social media posts from January 2015 until present is overly-broad and an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed June 18, 2018. Acting through counsel, Ms. 

Bossenbroek represented that none of the posts discuss Ms. Bossenbroek’s shoulder pain or 

injury. Id. The undersigned treated Ms. Bossenbroek’s status report as a motion to exclude, 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this order on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. 
2

denied said motion, and ordered petitioner to file her social media posts. Order, issued June 21, 

2018. The undersigned noted that Ms. Bossenbroek may renew her motion to exclude following 

the submission of the social media posts. Id. 

Instead, Ms. Bossenbroek moved to quash the order to file her social media posts on June 

28, 2018. Pet’r’s Mot. Quash. Ms. Bossenbroek maintained that the production of all her social 

media posts from January 2015 to present is an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” because it is a 

“release [of] the most private and sensitive details of all aspects of her life.” Id. at 6. Moreover, 

Ms. Bossenbroek acknowledges that the information the posts could provide is “potentially 

relevant” but still views it as an overly-broad request and a “fishing expedition.” Id. at 6-7. 

Furthermore, Ms. Bossenbroek argues that her privacy interest and the privacy interests 

of people she mentions in her posts outweigh the “government’s desire to probe each and every 

aspect of petitioner’s personal life.” Id. at 8. Ms. Bossenbroek stated that her “privacy is to be 

strictly protected,” to promote “Congress’ intent,” even if the “non-specified evidence may be 

potentially relevant.” Id. at 9. Ms. Bossenbroek proposed a procedure in which the Chief 

Special Master would appoint another special master to review the social media posts in camera, 

for relevancy, to protect the undersigned from being biased by the posts. Id. at 11. Lastly, Ms. 

Bossenbroek argues that it would be detrimental to judicial economy to require the production of 

social media posts in the Vaccine Program. Id. at 12. 

On July 5, 2018, the undersigned suspended Ms. Bossenbroek’s production date and 

ordered respondent to respond by July 12, 2018. Order, issued July 5, 2018. 

Respondent maintained his request for social media posts. Resp’t’s Resp., filed July 12, 

2018. Respondent states that the social media posts may include photographs of Ms. 

Bossenbroek during the relevant time period and “are therefore directly relevant to the claims at 

issue.” Id. at 8. Respondent argues that “Vaccine Act explicitly safeguards personal material.” 

Id. at 9. Lastly, respondent explains that the “request for a relatively wide period (2015-2018) is 

based on petitioner’s claim of ongoing injury, and interest in obtaining information in a costeffective and relatively informal manner . . . given the absence of other documentary evidence to 

substantiate petitioner’s condition during the relevant period.” Id. at 10. 

 The undersigned held a status conference on July 27, 2018. During the status conference, 

Ms. Bossenbroek’s counsel stated that the production of the social media is over 300 pages, and 

that some social media posts include pictures, while others include text, or a combination of 

both. Petitioner’s counsel stated that she possesses the posts and reviewed such, but nothing 

appeared relevant to her. Ms. Bossenbroek reiterated her concern over the overly-broad 

production request. 

However, respondent stated that given the nature of the ongoing injury alleged and Ms. 

Bossenbroek’s inability to breastfeed her children, the social media posts are directly relevant to 

the claim. Respondent also stated that a document production of that size is no different from 

producing medical records. The parties discussed the possibility of narrowing the request and

instead of January 2015, respondent suggested narrowing the parameters of the production to be 

two months prior to the vaccination (August 2015) until present. Lastly, respondent stated his 
3

request is tailored to the case and that Ms. Bossenbroek could assert privileges after the filing of 

the posts. 

* * *

Having considered Ms. Bossenbroek’s arguments and proposition, the undersigned 

denies Ms. Bossenbroek’s motion to quash for the following reasons. 

For discovery requests in the Vaccine Program, the Vaccine Act provides that a special 

master may require “such evidence as may be reasonable and necessary,” may require “the 

submission of such information as may be reasonable and necessary,” and may require “the 

testimony of any person and the production of any documents as may be reasonable and 

necessary.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–12(d)(3)(B). Moreover, Vaccine Rule 7 permits parties to move, 

during a status conference, for additional discovery procedures set forth in the Rules of the Court 

of Federal Claims, if the evidence is insufficient, and the movant must include the reasons why 

the current informal discovery techniques have been insufficient. For special masters to make 

well-informed decisions, the Federal Circuit held that ordering the production of supplemental 

information is well within special masters’ authority over discovery proceedings. See Simanski 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 671 F.3d 1368, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Whitecotton v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 81 F.3d 1099, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that “the 

permissible scope of the special master's inquiry is virtually unlimited”).

The social media posts are reasonable and necessary for the undersigned to see if Ms. 

Bossenbroek’s claim can be substantiated. Ms. Bossenbroek contends that the production of her 

social media posts since January 2015 is overly broad and nothing more than a “fishing 

expedition.” Pet’r’s Mot. Quash at 6. However, as noted above, Ms. Bossenbroek admitted that 

the posts are “potentially relevant.” Pet’r’s Mot. Quash at 6-7. As for the necessity of the posts, 

respondent explained, in line with the Vaccine Guidelines,2how the social media posts are 

reasonably and directly relevant to establishing the severity of the ongoing injury Ms. 

Bossenbroek alleges. Resp’t’s Resp. at 8. The social media posts are necessary for establishing 

the six-month severity requirement that her medical records fail to do. Correspondingly, the 

remaining posts are helpful for the remainder of the undocumented time period where she asserts 

she experienced an ongoing injury, and the social media posts are also helpful if the case 

proceeds to the damages phase. 

 Moreover, the reasonableness of the request takes into account the relative burden in 

producing the information. See In re Claims for Vaccine Injuries Resulting in Autism Spectrum 

Disorder or a Similar Neurodevelopmental Disorder, 2004 WL 1660351, at *8-9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. July 16, 2004) (stating special masters “must consider the burden on the party who would 

be required to testify or produce documents” and holding the vaccine manufacturer’s documents 

were not necessary). Unlike the third party manufacturers that In re Claims considered, Ms. 

 

2 The Vaccine Guidelines state that “entries in various social media . . . made at or near 

the time of the injury claimed may provide information relevant to establishing onset or severity 

of an injury. Such videos and files should be located and preserved, and their existence reported 

to the court.” Section II, Chapter 3, ¶ 10. 
4

Bossenbroek, as the petitioner who initiated this proceeding, has relatively little standing to 

complain that the Secretary is investigating unrelated aspects of her life. Ms. Bossenbroek 

claimed that the vaccine-induced shoulder injury interfered with her ability to breastfeed her 

children, and by claiming so, she has put aspects of her personal life at issue. The Secretary 

should be allowed to explore the accuracy of this allegation. Ms. Bossenbroek also has not 

argued that the production is burdensome in the sense of being difficult to obtain the information. 

Her counsel’s representation, during the July 27, 2018 status conference, that she reviewed the 

social media posts and that they are approximately 300 printed pages demonstrate that Ms. 

Bossenbroek has the capacity to access the information she presented on social media. See 

Pet’r’s Mot. Quash at 3. Thus, the undersigned finds the social media posts reasonable and 

necessary for the prosecution of petitioner’s claim and thus, orders the production of the social 

media posts because petitioner’s filed medical records do not sufficiently substantiate her alleged 

ongoing injury.

Beyond arguing about the relevance of her social media posts, Ms. Bossenbroek appears 

to present two arguments to excuse her production of this material. First, Ms. Bossenbroek 

asserts a general right of privacy, but she has not established that there is a right of privacy with 

regards to the production of social media. See Impson v. Dixie Elec. Membership Corp., No. 14-

632-JWD-RLB, 2015 WL 9413122, at *4 (M.D. La. Dec. 22, 2015) (holding that even if 

someone maintains a private profile, the content is shared with other third-parties creating no 

privacy expectations); E.E.O.C. v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430, 437 (S.D. Ind. 

2010) (noting that although parties might be embarrassed by the production of social networking 

posts, this concern is outweighed by the fact that the posts have already been shared with other 

people and that disclosure of the posts are limited by a protective order). 

Ms. Bossenbroek attempts to ground her right to privacy in the Vaccine Act. She states 

that Congress intended to protect the sensitive information of petitioners in the Program. Pet’r’s 

Mot. Quash at 9. However, Ms. Bossenbroek conflates different aspects of the Vaccine Act. 

The Vaccine Act states: 

(A)Except as provided in subparagraph (B), information submitted to a special master or 

the court in a proceeding on a petition may not be disclosed to a person who is not a 

party to the proceeding without the express written consent of the person who 

submitted the information. 

(B) A decision of a special master or the court in a proceeding shall be disclosed, 

except that if the decision is to include information—

(i) which is trade secret or commercial or financial information which is 

privileged and confidential, or 

(ii) which are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, and if the person 

who submitted such information objects to the inclusion of such 

information in the decision, the decision shall be disclosed without 

such information.
5

42 U.S.C. § 300aa–12(d)(4) (emphasis added). 

Although Ms. Bossenbroek references Section 12(d)(4)(B), the more appropriate 

reference is Section 12(d)(4)(A) because Section 12(d)(4)(B) places potential limits on what can 

be disclosed in a special master’s public decision. Section 12(d)(4)(A) sets out Congress’ 

concerns regarding the privacy of information petitioners in the Vaccine Program submit as 

evidence. Under Section 12(d)(4)(A), Congress permits the disclosure of evidentiary filings only 

with petitioners’ written consent. In Ms. Bossenbroek’s case, her social media posts will remain 

sealed, if she does not provide written consent to others. In sum, Ms. Bossenbroek misinterprets 

Section 14(d)(4)(A)-(B) by suggesting that her social media posts are so similar to medical files 

that Congress recognized the production of social media as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Second, Ms. Bossenbroek is concerned about the undersigned’s possible bias upon his 

review of her social media posts. It is difficult to imagine what Ms. Bossenbroek posted that 

leads her to assert that her postings are so inflammatory that they will prevent a judicial officer 

from acting fairly. However, after producing the social media posts, she may make a motion for 

recusal identifying the alleged sources of bias. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975) 

(noting that a general assertion of judicial bias because of pre-trial involvement is lacking and 

this involvement does not thwart well-reasoned and unbiased decisions of fact or entitlement); 

Bieber v. Dep’t of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Because the Secretary proposed a more restricted period of time, the undersigned orders 

the filing of the social media posts to range from August 1, 2015, until July 31, 2018. The 

undersigned previously informed Ms. Bossenbroek that she may renew her motion to exclude 

following the submission of her posts. Order, issued June 21, 2018; see Navajo Nation v. United 

States, 106 Fed. Cl. 753, 755-56 (2012) (ordering the production of social media posts for ediscovery and allowing parties to assert privilege afterwards). Ms. Bossenbroek still may take 

advantage of this option. 

 Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 

Ms. Bossenbroek shall file her social media posts from August 1, 2015, until July 31, 

2018, by Friday, September 14, 2018. 

Any questions regarding this order shall be directed to my law clerk, Andrew Schick, at 

(202) 357-6360. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Christian J. Moran 

 Christian J. Moran 

 Special Master