Bloomgarden v. United States Department of Justice, 253 F. Supp. 3d 166

Bloomgarden filed a FOIA suit (2012) seeking a 3,700‑page disciplinary file for a former AUSA to support a possible new‑trial effort in state criminal proceedings.
EOUSA initially searched and reported no responsive records; the district court granted the DOJ summary judgment on that basis and Bloomgarden appealed.
While the appeal was pending, another agency located the disciplinary file; the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, litigation focused on DOJ’s inadequate Vaughn index, withheld public/court records, and segregability; the court ordered production of many unredacted and partially redacted pages but upheld withholding of some documents (including a 35‑page letter under Exemption 6).
Bloomgarden moved for attorney’s fees under FOIA § 552(a)(4)(E). The court found Bloomgarden eligible and entitled to a partial fee award because DOJ’s obdurate withholding prolonged the litigation.
The court reduced the requested lodestar based on limited success, duplicated effort, improper billing (travel at full rate, block billing), and denied fees for certain time periods; awarded $43,617.00 in fees and $1,901.23 in costs (total $45,518.23).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fee eligibility under FOIA ("substantially prevailed")	Bloomgarden: court‑ordered releases and production establish substantial prevailance.	DOJ: (conceded) Bloomgarden substantially prevailed.	Court: Eligible — releases and court orders satisfy the statute.
Entitlement — public benefit and private interest factors	Bloomgarden: records had public importance because they could show prosecutorial misconduct.	DOJ: Bloomgarden sought records to aid his private criminal appeal; public benefit is minimal.	Court: Public‑benefit and plaintiff’s interest factors weigh against fees (private motive).
Entitlement — reasonableness of DOJ’s withholding (obduracy)	Bloomgarden: DOJ’s broad withholdings and inadequate Vaughn index were unreasonable and prolonged litigation.	DOJ: Some withholdings were legally justified; overall conduct is neutral.	Court: DOJ was obdurate (inadequate Vaughn, failure to segregate, delay); this factor strongly favors an award.
Fee amount (lodestar reductions & timing)	Bloomgarden: lodestar ~$154,885; asks ~46% for post‑search work plus fees‑on‑fees.	DOJ: large reductions — no fees before June 30, 2014; minimal recovery through Feb 17, 2016; none after.	Court: No fees for pre‑June 30, 2014 work; 30% of fees for June 30, 2014–Feb 17, 2016 after reductions for limited success, duplication, and billing issues; no fees after Feb 17, 2016 except for reduced fees‑on‑fees.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir.) (framework: eligibility and entitlement prongs for FOIA fees)
Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (describing fee‑eligibility/entitlement division)
Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir.) (fee‑entitlement factors framework)
Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir.) (reasonableness of withholding weighed in entitlement calculus)
Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir.) (four‑factor entitlement test and public‑interest emphasis)
LaSalle Extension Univ. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 627 F.2d 481 (D.C. Cir.) (congressional goals of FOIA fee shifting: public benefit and compensation for agency obduracy)
Oguaju v. United States, 288 F.3d 448 (D.C. Cir.) (private motive to attack conviction does not support public‑interest factor)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S.) (fee shifting aims to achieve "rough justice," not auditing perfection)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (proportionality of hours to success guides fee reductions)