1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: June 6, 2017

Amended for Posting: June 7, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED 

A.P., *

* No. 14-894v

Petitioner, *

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Motion to Redact Public Decision;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Motion Filed Out of Time.

*

Respondent. *

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

Nancy R. Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Lisa A. Watts, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REDACT PUBLIC DECISION1

On June 1, 2017, A.P. (“petitioner”) filed a motion to redact the decision awarding interim 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 71). Because the motion was filed out of 

time, it is DENIED.

I. Procedural History

On September 23, 2014, petitioner, using his full name, filed a petition pursuant to the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2

 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that 

as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 3, 2012, he suffered small fiber 

sensory Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), depression, and chronic insomnia. Petition at ¶¶1-5. 

 

1 Because this order contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post this order on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 

(codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party 

has 14 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).

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood 

Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

300aa-1 to 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this decision to individual sections of 

the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.
2

On December 16, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs, 

which the undersigned granted on December 28, 2016. Decision - Interim Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs (ECF No. 53). The decision summarized petitioner’s claim and explained why interim fees 

and costs were appropriate at that time. Id. at 1-2. The decision evaluated the reasonableness of 

the requested fees and costs, including the costs associated with compensating two of petitioner’s 

treating physicians. Id. at 3-4. The decision provided that the undersigned “intends to post this 

ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims,” and “as provided by Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction.” Id. at 1, n.1. The docket 

entry specified that redactions to the decision were due by January 11, 2017. On December 29, 

2016, petitioner’s counsel filed the parties’ joint notice renouncing the right to seek review of the 

decision. Joint Notice (ECF No. 54). Neither party filed a motion for redaction or otherwise 

contacted the Court regarding redaction. The decision was made public on January 27, 2017, and 

was published on the Court’s website. Public Decision (ECF No. 59). 

On June 1, 2017, petitioner filed a motion to redact his name from the decision granting 

interim attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b). Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 

71). Petitioner states that he was “unaware of the Decision, given that it pertained to attorneys’ 

fees and costs.” Id. at 1. He states: “the decision briefly references [his] medical conditions and 

lists his treatment providers, information which [he] would prefer to remain confidential given the 

impact it may have on his employability and on prospective views of his suitability to treat them 

as patients.” Id. For these reasons, petitioner requests to redact his name from the published 

decision. Id. 

On June 2, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. Respondent’s 

Response (ECF No. 72). Respondent notes that petitioner’s motion is untimely. Id. at 1. Further, 

“the Interim Fee decision has been publicly available for many months, seemingly negating any 

benefit of redaction at this point.” Id. Respondent recommends that “the Court’s analysis should 

focus on whether redaction of the requested information strikes an appropriate balance between 

petitioner’s privacy interest in the information and the public’s interest in the interim fee decision”. 

Id. at 1. Respondent then “defers to the Special Master’s judgment as to whether petitioner’s 

motion should be granted.” Id. at 6.

On June 4, 2017, petitioner filed a reply. Petitioner’s Reply (ECF No. 73). Petitioner 

“concurs with respondent’s deferral to the sound discretion of the special master... with respect to 

petitioner’s redaction request.” Id. at 1. He acknowledges that his motion is untimely, but states 

again that “given the Decision related to the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, petitioner was not 

aware of the Decision or the medical information contained therein until very recently.” Id. He 

states that “continued” publication of this information constitutes “a clearly unwarranted invasion 

of personal privacy,” and that the petitioner and the government’s interests can be better balanced 

by redacting petitioner’s name. Id. at 1-2. This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. Discussion

A motion for redaction is governed by section 12(d)(4)(B) of the Vaccine Act. See 42 

U.S.C. §300aa-12(d)(4)(B). That section provides that information concerning “medical files 

and similar files” may be redacted if its disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
3

invasion of privacy.” Id. What constitutes a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy” requires 

balancing petitioner’s “right of privacy against the public purpose of the Vaccine Act.” W.C. v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440, 460 (2011), aff’d on non-relevant grounds, 

704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); see also Langland v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 07-

36V, 2011 WL 802695 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2011), mot. for rev. denied on non-relevant 

grounds, 109 Fed. Cl. 421 (2013). While a petitioner has an interest in keeping sensitive medical 

or other embarrassing information private, the public has an interest in disclosure, so as to 

increase awareness of vaccines and the medical conditions they may cause. Id. at 461. In other 

words, sensitive information is often the subject of the litigation, and “in cases where sensitive 

information is the subject of the dispute, that information is routinely disclosed in decisions, to 

enable the reader to follow and understand the decision maker’s rationale.” Castagna v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 2011 WL 4348135, *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., Aug. 25, 2011).

However, a decision is not made public instantly. Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), the Court 

holds a decision for 14 days to “afford each party an opportunity to object to the publication of 

any information... which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” An 

objecting party is required to “provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the 

decision.” Vaccine Rule 18(b) clearly provides: “In the absence of an objection, the entire 

decision will be made public.”

In this case, petitioner’s motion is untimely. The decision awarding interim attorneys’ fees 

and costs and the docket text made clear that any redactions were due within 14 days, no later than 

January 11, 2017. See Decision - Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs at 1, n. 1. However, petitioner

did not file a timely motion for redaction or request an extension of time to do so. The decision 

was made public on January 27, 2017, after which it was posted on the Court’s website. Petitioner 

did not file a motion for redaction until over 3 months later. Petitioner acknowledges that the 

motion is untimely. However, he does not adequately explain the delay or why he should be 

allowed to file a motion for redaction out of time. 

Furthermore, petitioner does not show a compelling privacy interest outweighing the public 

interest in keeping the public decision, as it was originally filed, on the Court’s website. 

Respondent correctly notes that the decision has been publicly available for many months, 

“seemingly negating any benefit of redaction at this point.” Respondent’s Response at 1.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned finds that petitioner has not demonstrated a 

compelling privacy interest, greater than that of many other petitioners, which would allow him to 

(1) file a motion for redaction significantly out of time, and (2) redact the decision which has 

already been published on the Court’s website. Therefore, petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

s/Thomas L. Gowen

 Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master