Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. U.S. Department of Justice
820 F. Supp. 2d 39
D.D.C.2011Background
- CREW filed FOIA requests with DOJ OLC in Feb and Mar 2010 seeking recordkeeping guidance and emails related to Yoo/Philbin; CREW sought expedited processing for the Feb request.
- OLC acknowledged expedited processing and proposed narrowing scope; discussions occurred about processing parts of the Feb request separately; no discussion of the Mar 3 request in that call.
- OLC produced non-referred documents on Aug 31, 2010; produced 25 referred documents and a draft Vaughn index on Sep 30 and Oct 22, 2010 respectively; no further communication on the Mar 3 request.
- CREW filed suit May 11, 2010; Scheduling Order issued Aug 2, 2010 requiring processing and production by dates; OLC complied with timing.
- By June 9, 2011, the case was dismissed by joint stipulation; CREW then moved for attorney fees and costs, which the court granted in principle but as to amount to be determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CREW is eligible for fees under FOIA | CREW obtained relief via a judicial order. | DOJ argues eligibility based on scheduling actions could be inconclusive. | CREW substantially prevailed; eligible for fees. |
| Whether CREW is entitled to fees (entitlement factors) | Public benefit, CREW's noncommercial interest support entitlement. | Agency withholding was reasonable given exemptions and context. | Entitlement established after balancing four factors; CREW entitled to fees. |
| What factors govern the reasonableness of fee award | CREW should be compensated for public-interest FOIA litigation. | Withholding reasonableness and procedural posture justify fee limits. | Court will permit a separate process to determine the fee amount; grant of fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C.Cir.2008) (four-factor entitlement framework; public interest emphasis)
- Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162 (D.C.Cir.2006) (eligibility via joint stipulation and order; changed legal relationship)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (Judicial Watch I), 470 F.3d 363 (D.C.Cir.2006) (fee eligibility and the two-prong approach)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (Judicial Watch II), 522 F.3d 364 (D.C.Cir.2008) (stressed that a scheduled order can suffice for eligibility)
- Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C.Cir.1992) (four-factor framework for entitlement; public benefit emphasis)
- Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704 (D.C.Cir.1977) (policy rationale for FOIA fee provision)
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court 2001) (controversies over prevailing party standards)
- Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740 (D.C.Cir.1979) (public-interest informational value governing FOIA relief)