Service for the purpose of ascertaining what, if any, "intermediate applications" may have been received by that agency from the State of New York which they have not disclosed to plaintiffs, and that such examination disclosed the existence of divers documents, all of which are characterized by Mr. Rubel as "working papers or drafts" and not as "intermediate applications which were actually submitted to the Department as specified in the stipulation of settlement." (Rubel affidavit, pp. 4-5.)
Conclusions of Law
1. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of this litigation.
2. The term "intermediate application" as used in the stipulation means a formal application actually submitted by a state to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for approval, which has been superceded by another formal application actually so submitted by such state. The documents to which plaintiffs claim to be entitled under the stipulation of settlement referred to above, and not provided to them by defendants, do not appear to the Court to constitute "intermediate applications which were actually submitted to the department"; rather, they appear to be in the nature of preliminary drafts and working papers not submitted for final approval.
3. It thus appears to this Court that the documents requested by plaintiffs are beyond the scope of the stipulation of settlement.
4. Since plaintiffs have thus not demonstrated that they are entitled to receive the documents they seek, defendants are not required by the stipulation of settlement to withhold action on the pending applications for any further period of time.
5. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary relief they seek is not granted.
6. Plaintiffs have not shown that they will suffer such a degree of harm if the relief they seek is not granted that will override that harm which is likely to be suffered by defendants and the public if such relief is granted.
7. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.