80 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- CREW filed a FOIA request in 2011 with DOJ for records concerning the investigation/prosecution of lobbyist Paul J. Magliocchetti; DOJ initially withheld records on privacy grounds.
- Litigation followed; as a result of the suit DOJ released hundreds of pages and CREW published reporting based on those records.
- CREW moved for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party under FOIA; DOJ did not dispute entitlement or hours but challenged the hourly rate used to calculate the award.
- CREW’s counsel: Anne L. Weisman (30+ years, FOIA specialist) and David L. Sobel (27 years, FOIA practitioner); both lack standard hourly rates as public-interest lawyers.
- CREW proposed using the Laffey matrix adjusted by the legal services CPI (LSI-adjusted Laffey) to determine prevailing market rates; DOJ urged use of the USAO matrix adjusted by the overall CPI for the Washington-Baltimore area (CPI-WB).
- The court adopted the LSI-adjusted Laffey as the better starting point for complex federal litigation in D.C., reduced those rates by 15% to reflect billing realization differences, and awarded a total of $35,018 (including costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rate metric | Use Laffey matrix adjusted by legal-services CPI (LSI-adjusted Laffey) to reflect rates for complex federal litigation in D.C. | Use USAO matrix adjusted by regional overall CPI (CPI-WB), which yields substantially lower rates | Court used LSI-adjusted Laffey as starting point because legal-services CPI better tracks law-rate inflation in D.C. |
| Whether law-firm billing rates are appropriate benchmark for public-interest/sole-practitioner counsel | Law-firm rates are an appropriate market benchmark per Supreme Court/D.C. Circuit precedent | Argued lower realized rates support a smaller matrix | Court accepted law-firm rates as benchmark but adjusted downward to reflect typical realization/discounting practices. |
| Reduction from matrix rates to awardable rates | No reduction requested beyond matrix | DOJ urged lower rates consistent with CPI-WB and average billing surveys | Court imposed 15% reduction from LSI-adjusted Laffey rates to account for discounts/write-offs and awarded fees accordingly. |
| Reasonableness of fees for services performed (complexity, counsel skill, national interest) | Case was complex, national public-interest, counsel were comparable to high-experience FOIA practitioners—matrix rates appropriate | DOJ argued surveys show lower average realized rates | Court found counsel’s skill and case complexity supported LSI-adjusted Laffey baseline; applied 15% reduction and awarded fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (fee awards measured by prevailing market rates regardless of public-benefit representation)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (standard for proving prevailing community rates for fee awards)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (prevailing market-rate method applies to varied practice settings)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (origin of the billing-rate matrix used in D.C.)
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 999 F. Supp. 2d 137 (analysis favoring legal-services CPI over general CPI for legal-rate inflation)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 832 F. Supp. 2d 32 (discussion of matrix selection and firm-size considerations)
- Salazar v. District of Columbia, 991 F. Supp. 2d 39 (application of Laffey matrix in civil-rights litigation)