Codrea v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
272 F. Supp. 3d 49
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Codrea, Savage, FFL Defense Research Center) submitted a FOIA request to ATF in March 2015 for records about federal firearms; ATF failed to respond within 20 days and plaintiffs sued in June 2015.
- During litigation ATF processed and produced rolling disclosures and by March 2016 had produced 6,875 pages (in whole or in part); the parties disputed only four pages, which the Court upheld ATF’s withholding under Exemption 7(E).
- Plaintiffs moved for $13,234 in attorney’s fees under FOIA § 552(a)(4)(E), arguing they were the prevailing party under the catalyst theory because production occurred only after they filed suit.
- ATF argued the productions were caused by administrative backlogs and concurrent high-priority projects (e.g., large reviews and redaction work) and that litigation did not cause the release.
- The Court applied the two-step FOIA fee test (eligibility — "substantially prevailed" — then entitlement) and focused on causation for catalyst theory eligibility.
- Holding: plaintiffs were not eligible for attorney’s fees because they failed to show litigation caused ATF’s disclosures; ATF’s explanations of backlog and competing work broke any causal nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs "substantially prevailed" for FOIA fee eligibility via the catalyst theory | Litigation caused ATF to produce 6,875 pages only after suit, so plaintiffs substantially prevailed | ATF production resulted from preexisting backlog and other high‑priority projects, not the suit | Denied — plaintiffs did not show causation, so not eligible |
| Whether timing of production alone proves causation | Filing + subsequent production is sufficient to qualify as catalyst | Timing alone is insufficient; must show litigation prompted release | Denied — timing alone insufficient; need more than post hoc correlation |
| Whether ATF’s administrative explanations defeat catalyst claim | Plaintiffs contended ATF typically delays absent litigation, citing other requestors’ experiences | ATF provided detailed, specific reasons (backlog, 20,000‑page project, redaction task) for delay | Held for ATF — agency’s plausible explanations break causal link |
| Need to address entitlement factors if eligibility satisfied | Plaintiffs would argue fee award appropriate given practical relief | ATF would contest entitlement and reasonableness if eligibility met | Court did not reach entitlement because plaintiffs were not eligible |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemente v. FBI, 867 F.3d 111 (D.C. Cir.) (describing two‑prong FOIA fee test: eligibility and entitlement)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing catalyst theory under FOIA)
- McKinley v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, 739 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.) (FOIA fee award standards)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir.) (timing alone insufficient to show causation)
- Davis v. U.S. Department of Justice, 610 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir.) (suit can make plaintiff eligible where litigation substantially caused release)
- Burka v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 142 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir.) (requirement to show lawsuit was reasonably necessary and substantially caused release)
- Church of Scientology v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir.) (causation inquiry and when administrative delay negates catalyst claim)
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S.) (discusses limits of catalyst theory; Congress later restored catalyst theory for FOIA)