142 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- CREW filed FOIA requests for records relating to the DOJ/FBI criminal investigation of Senator John Ensign; agencies invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and largely withheld documents or failed to search.
- CREW sued; the court found a significant public interest in DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Ensign and ordered the DOJ to process records and produce Vaughn indices rather than rely on categorical withholding.
- DOJ delayed and sought to provide representative/sample Vaughn indices before processing all responsive records; the court denied that request and ordered document-by-document processing and production.
- After litigation and a second court order, the government produced thousands of pages and Vaughn indices; CREW did not challenge the withholdings but sought attorneys’ fees for its FOIA victory.
- The court assessed entitlement to fees under FOIA using the D.C. Circuit’s four-factor test and found CREW substantially prevailed and was entitled to fees, but evaluated the reasonableness and amount of fees claimed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees | CREW: prevailed and conferred public benefit; entitled to fees under FOIA | DOJ: denied unreasonable withholding not shown; some delay but ultimately produced; fees not warranted | Court: CREW substantially prevailed; all four Tax Analysts factors favor CREW; fees awarded |
| Reasonableness of agency withholding (Factor 4) | CREW: DOJ’s categorical withholding and request to use representative Vaughn indices were unreasonable and delayed disclosure | DOJ: had colorable legal grounds and later produced; not mere stonewalling | Court: DOJ’s categorical position was weak given precedents; representative-sampling request unreasonable; delay weighed for CREW |
| Hours reasonably expended | CREW: billing records and declarations show reasonable hours; some reduction already taken | DOJ: records inadequately documented, possible post-hoc reconstruction, discrepancies; seek large reduction or denial | Court: billing descriptions and rounding acceptable but contemporaneous records ambiguous and partially withheld; reduced hours by 18% (but not Sobel’s fee hours) |
| Reasonable hourly rate | CREW: Laffey Matrix updated by Legal Services Index (LSI) supports ~$753–$789/hr for senior attorneys | DOJ: LSI unreliable; market surveys and alternative Laffey updates (USAO matrix) show much lower prevailing rates | Court: CREW failed to meet burden to justify LSI rates; applied USAO-updated Laffey rates (e.g., $520/hr for senior attorneys) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 11 F.3d 211 (D.C. Cir.) (FOIA fee-shifting framework and prevailing party standard)
- Tax Analysts v. DOJ, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (four-factor test for FOIA fee entitlement)
- Martin v. DOJ, 488 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (privacy interests weigh heavily in Exemption 7(C) cases)
- Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (distinguishing public-interest vs. private-benefit requesters)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec’y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (contemporaneous time records required for fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (prevailing market rates govern reasonable hourly fee)
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears burden to demonstrate requested rates reflect prevailing market rates)