FOIL: COVID Vaccine Redistribution Communications (Buffalo Psychiatric Center)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

Any and all emails to or from the following email address since 1/1/2018:

CovidVaccineRedistribution@health.ny.gov

Including any attachments or related forms transmitted as attachments or embedded in responsive email messages.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jackson Parker

May 18, 2023

FOIL Appeals Officer
NYS Office of Mental Health
44 Holland Avenue
Albany, NY 12229
(518) 473-7863

Re: Freedom of Information Law Appeal - FOIL Request 145254-33263960

Dear FOIL Appeals Officer,

I am writing to appeal the denial of access to records requested from the Office of Mental Health (OMH) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). I believe the denial of my request was improper and ask you to reconsider.

On May 1, 2023, I sent a FOIL request to the OMH seeking “Any and all emails to or from the email address: CovidVaccineRedistribution@Health.ny.gov." My request was denied on May 18, 2023, with the claim that it was "too broad."

The denial letters referenced Konigsberg v. Coughlin, 68 N.Y.2d 245 (N.Y. 1986) and the NYS Committee on Open Government’s FOIL Advisory Opinions 18949 and 18863 as justification for the denial. However, these references were taken out of context.

In Konigsberg v. Coughlin, the court clearly stated that an agency cannot evade the broad disclosure provisions of the statute "upon the naked allegation that the request will require review of thousands of records." This was reaffirmed in the case of Kim A. Kirsch Et Al., Respondents, v. Board Of Education Of Williamsville Central School District et al., Appellants, 152 A.D.3d 1218 (4th Dep't. 2017). The court emphasized the agency's obligation to provide non-exempt, appropriately redacted material upon a valid FOIL request, rather than denying it due to the volume of records.

As for FOIL Advisory Opinions 18949 and 18863, they do present instances where a request might be overly broad, but they don't universally deem all extensive requests as unreasonable. The considerations for what constitutes a "reasonable" request are multifaceted and depend on a variety of factors, including the nature of an agency’s filing or record-keeping system.

Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) along with 21 NYCRR § 1401.2(b)(2), (3) further provide a clear mandate to agencies, including the OMH, to assist the requester in identifying the records sought. I believe the assistance that I should have received within five business days of my request, as specified by law, was not adequately provided.

To address the concern of the request being too broad, I am willing to limit the timeframe of the correspondence to the periods: 10/1/2019 - 04/30/2020 and 11/1/2020 - 04/30/2021.

Given these factors, I kindly ask for a reevaluation of my FOIL request and a good-faith attempt to fulfill it. The documents sought are intended to be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

If further clarification is needed, or if certain aspects of the request could be fulfilled more easily than others, I am open to discussion. Please inform me of the next steps in the appeals process according to the regulations governing FOIL requests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Dear FOIL Appeals Officer,

I am writing in response to your denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, which sought access to emails to or from the address CovidVaccineRedistribution@health.ny.gov. I understand your concerns about the breadth of the request and the potential burden it might impose on your agency. However, I believe there are several points that merit reconsideration.

Firstly, the email address in question is specific to the COVID vaccine redistribution effort. As such, it is reasonable to assume that only a limited number of staff involved in this effort would have utilized this address. This significantly narrows the scope of potential records and reduces the burden of the search.

Secondly, as per Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) and 21 NYCRR § 1401.2(b)(2), (3), agencies are mandated to assist requesters in identifying the records sought. I have not been provided with any assistance or guidance on how to identify specific staff members who might have used the email address in question. This information is not publicly available and can only be provided by your agency.

Thirdly, the denial of my request based on the argument that it is too broad seems to contradict the spirit of the Freedom of Information Law, which is to promote transparency and accountability in government. The denial also appears to be inconsistent with the advisory opinions and case law cited in your response.

In light of these points, I kindly request that you reconsider the denial of my FOIL request. I am open to further discussion and willing to work with your agency to refine the request if necessary. I look forward to your positive response.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.