Brayton v. Office of United States Trade Representative, 395 U.S. App. D.C. 155

Brayton, a FOIA plaintiff, sought disclosure of a classified WTO-related trade agreement from USTR.
USTR denied disclosure, classifying the agreement pending negotiations, with an appeals committee later affirming the classification.
The agreement was produits of WTO negotiations requiring confidentiality until negotiations concluded.
During litigation, USTR signaled potential declassification if EC consented, and the EC agreed to release the document publicly.
Brayton obtained declassification and moved for attorney fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i) claiming substantial relief, triggering the OPEN Government Act’s framework.
The district court applied the Weisberg two-step analysis, concluding Brayton was not entitled to fees because the government’s withholding was correct as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brayton can receive fees when the government’s withholding was correct as a matter of law	Brayton contends the 'not insubstantial' standard governs entitlement regardless of lawfulness.	USTR's withholding was correct as a matter of law, so Brayton cannot be entitled to fees.	Fees denied; entitlement requires not insubstantial claim without merit.
Whether OPEN Government Act altered entitlement framework post Buckhannon	Act reinstates pre-Buckhannon catalyst theory for fee eligibility; entitlement should follow not insubstantial claim.	Act affected eligibility; entitlement remains governed by whether withholding was correct as a matter of law.	Act reshaped eligibility but not the entitlement standard; Brayton remains unable to prevail on entitlement here.

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (Buckhannon rule on 'some relief' for fee eligibility; FOIA exceptions.)
Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Dep't of Energy, 288 F.3d 452 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (Buckhannon applicability to FOIA.)
Chesapeake Bay Found. v. USDA, 11 F.3d 216 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (government's correct legal basis for withholding defeats fees.)
Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion; de novo review of legal standard for entitlement.)
Tax Analysts v. Dep't of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (factors for entitlement; initial reasonableness of withholding.)
Summers v. Dep't of Justice, 569 F.3d 500 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (catalyst theory description; pre-OPEN Act context.)
Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 610 F.3d 750 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (OPEN Government Act reinstates catalyst theory for FOIA.)
In Def. of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 656 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2009) (FOIA trial showing factual questions may preclude summary judgment.)
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1995) (principle against arbitrary discretion in fee awards.)