Cornucopia Institute v. Agricultural Marketing Service
Civil Action No. 2016-2252
| D.D.C. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Cornucopia Institute (nonprofit) submitted a FOIA request to USDA/AMS for all applications for five NOSB vacancies announced April 4, 2016.
- AMS initially withheld 671 pages in full under FOIA Exemptions 5 (pre-decisional/deliberative) and 6 (privacy); administrative appeal was denied.
- Cornucopia sued in November 2016; USDA announced the NOSB appointments two days later and in December 2016 produced the 671 pages with many Exemption 6 redactions and some partial waivers for appointees.
- AMS made further limited disclosures in March 2017 (state of residence unredacted, a few missed pages produced, one redaction corrected), and parties informed the court production was complete and stayed the case pending fee negotiations.
- Cornucopia sought $41,965.73 in fees and costs; the court found Cornucopia eligible and entitled to fees but reduced the award because fees-on-fees were excessive and the merits were resolved quickly.
- Final award: $9,723.75 (merits fees) + $2,000.00 (fees-on-fees) + $422.08 (costs) = $12,145.83.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is a "substantially prevailing" FOIA requester (eligibility) | Filing the lawsuit caused AMS to release withheld records; plaintiff thus substantially prevailed under the catalyst theory | Releases were prompted by the board appointments (changed circumstances), not the lawsuit, so no causal nexus | Court: Close call but lawsuit substantially caused releases; plaintiff is eligible for fees |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to an award (entitlement factors) | Nonprofit public-interest requester; public benefit from disclosure; no commercial motive; agency not unreasonably withholding | Agency had a colorable legal basis to withhold under Exemptions 5 and 6 | Court: Three of four entitlement factors favor plaintiff (public benefit, requester interest, lack of commercial benefit); agency conduct favored defendant but overall plaintiff entitled to fees |
| Whether the requested fees amount is reasonable | Requested $41,965.73 using Laffey rates, including substantial fees-on-fees; fees-on-fees are compensable | Fees request is excessive and much time was spent on fee litigation after merits were complete; many entries unnecessary/redundant | Court: Reduced fees-on-fees drastically and cut merits fees by 25% because fee litigation dominated and merits were uncomplicated |
| Proper allocation between merits work and fees-on-fees | Plaintiff treated much time billed after production as merits work but sought fees for all entries | Defendant urged treating post-production work as fees-on-fees and challenged many entries as duplicative/unnecessary | Court: Treated post-production entries as fees-on-fees, awarded $2,000 for fees-on-fees and $9,723.75 for merits fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (eligibility and entitlement framework; catalyst theory discussion)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir.) (fees eligibility and entitlement standards)
- Morley v. CIA, 719 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir.) (four-factor entitlement test: public benefit, commercial benefit, requester interest, reasonableness of agency conduct)
- Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir.) (government correctness as dispositive and weighing agency conduct)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir.) (causation/catalyst precedent in FOIA fee awards)