FOIL: COVID Vaccine Redistribution Communications (Nyc Health + Hospitals)

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

Subject: Re: A Matter of Public Record: Concerning Electronic Correspondence Relating to CovidVaccineRedistribution@health.ny.gov

Dear Ms. Yogeshwar,

I tip my hat to your swift reply concerning my appeal under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) submitted on the first day of May, 2023. The documents in question pertain to all electronic correspondence to or from the address CovidVaccineRedistribution@health.ny.gov dating back to the first of January, 2018, with particular emphasis on attachments and related forms embedded therein.

I am indebted to your astute guidance concerning the necessity of custodian names for a thorough and fruitful examination of the email archives. In light of this revelation, I am hereby extending my request to incorporate all entities under the aegis of NYC Health + Hospitals as potential custodians. These institutions are as follows:

Infirmary Establishments:
1. Bellevue
2. Coney Island
3. Elmhurst
4. Harlem
5. Jacobi
6. Kings County
7. Lincoln
8. Metropolitan
9. North Central Bronx
10. Queens
11. Woodhull

Long-Term Care Facilities:
12. Carter
13. Coler
14. Gouverneur
15. McKinney
16. Sea View

In addition, kindly include the Gotham Health community-based clinics, numbering approximately 30, scattered throughout our fair city.

This request may indeed cast a wide net, yet given the public health implications tied to the email address in question, I trust you'll agree that a comprehensive approach is both judicious and necessary.

I shall also heed your advice and establish contact with the good folks at @health.ny.gov to request their cooperation in this endeavor.

I do extend my sincerest thanks for your valued assistance in this matter. I am confident that with your cooperation, we will secure the requested records within the stipulated time frame as dictated by the statute.

Once again, I am profoundly grateful for your attention to this issue of public interest. I eagerly await your response, and here's to a swift and satisfactory resolution of this request.

05/18/2023
Subject: Appeal: New York Freedom of Information Law Request: FOIL: COVID Vaccine Redistribution Communications (Nyc Health + Hospitals)

Dear Ms. Andrea G. Cohen,

I write to you to appeal the denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request dated May 1, 2023, as per the communication received from Ms. Vanita Yogeshwar, Records Access Officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, on May 16, 2023.

My initial request sought all electronic correspondence, including attachments, to or from the address CovidVaccineRedistribution@health.ny.gov, since January 1, 2018. I have subsequently attempted to comply with the instructions for specificity provided by Ms. Yogeshwar in terms of identifying custodians for these documents.

The reason given for the denial was that my request was "not reasonably described" and would yield a prohibitive volume of documents for review and redaction. However, in line with the intent of FOIL and New York Court of Appeals rulings, my request does not require the identification of individual custodians.

As the New York State Committee on Open Government has advised, “the FOIL is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (k) of the Law.”

The issue of whether a request is "reasonably described" has been clarified by the New York State Court of Appeals, which has held that to deny a request on the basis that it fails to reasonably describe records, an agency must establish that "the descriptions were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought" (Konigsberg v. Coughlin, 68 NY 2d 245, 249 (1986)).

Given that my request pertains to a specific email address associated with a highly relevant and important public health issue, it should be possible to conduct an efficient electronic search. This is further emphasized by the fact that the email domain in question (@health.ny.gov) is specific to a government agency, and the purpose and operation of the emails in question are directly related to its public function.

While I understand that the volume of documents may be high, it should not be a barrier to transparency and access to public records. The Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine (9 NY3d 454, 460 (2007)) case illustrates that the burden of complying with FOIL does not justify a denial of access to public records. The spirit of FOIL is to ensure public access to government records, and logistical challenges should not obstruct this principle.

In conclusion, I ask that you reconsider the denial of my request. I am willing to work with NYC Health + Hospitals to further refine the search parameters if necessary, while ensuring the spirit and intent of FOIL are upheld.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Thank You!

Upon reviewing the provided document, I observed several redactions. While I understand and respect the necessity to protect personal and sensitive information, I would like to request further clarification to ensure transparency and adherence to FOIL guidelines.

Specifically, I am seeking answers to the following:

Could you provide the exact classification codes or reasons for each of the redactions in the document?

What is the rationale behind redacting specific pieces of information?

Can you confirm that all redactions made are consistent with FOIL redaction practices and that no information that could be disclosed under FOIL has been unnecessarily withheld?

I appreciate your commitment to transparency and public access to information. I understand that the redaction process is essential to protect certain details, but I believe it's equally crucial to ensure that the public has access to as much information as possible under the law.

Yes the format you have provided is partially responsive.

Upon reviewing the document, I observed that while the senders, recipients, and sometimes the subject lines of certain emails are visible, the body content of these emails is redacted in its entirety. Specifically, I'd like to draw attention to the following instances:

Page 20-22: Email from Christos Kouretsos with the subject "FW: Attached Image".
Page 320-321: Email from Chris Keeley with the subject "Vaccine redistribution".
Page 48: Email from Anthony Ilwe Kanu with the subject "NYS_RedistributionGuidancE_01022021-00.pdf".

The justification provided for these redactions is "Public Officers Law 87 2 (b) which if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". While I understand the need to protect personal information, I am keen to understand why the entire body of these emails, which could potentially contain non-personal, procedural, or factual information, has been redacted under this clause.

Could you please provide further clarification on the rationale behind these redactions? If possible, I would appreciate it if non-personal, procedural, or factual information from these emails could be disclosed, or if a more detailed justification for the redactions could be provided.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I understand the complexities involved in the redaction process, and I appreciate your commitment to transparency and public access to information. I look forward to your prompt response.

please send the remainder of documents.