Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security
999 F. Supp. 2d 61
D.D.C.2013Background
- EPIC sued DHS under FOIA seeking documents about DHS's social media monitoring program.
- Court denied in part and granted in part cross-motions for summary judgment; DHS to produce six of seven Secret Service documents in redacted form.
- EPIC sought attorney's fees; court ordered the parties to confer but reserved fee issues for later determination.
- EPIC submitted a fee petition; DHS opposed and moved to strike settlement-communication references in EPIC's reply.
- The court awarded $29,841.67 in fees and $350 in costs, after reductions for rates, vague entries, and other adjustments; DHS’s motion to strike denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOIA fee eligibility and entitlement? | EPIC substantially prevailed and is entitled to fees. | EPIC’s fee amount should be limited; some relief disputed. | EPIC eligible and entitled to fees; partial entitlement justified. |
| Calculation of lodestar and rate adjustments? | Lodestar computed under Laffey matrix; hours reasonable at prevailing market rates. | Some hours/rates improper (paralegal vs. attorney); adjustments needed. | Lodestar adjusted: reduced rates for certain staff; overall fee award reduced to reflect bar admission and other deductions. |
| Fees on fees for litigating the fee petition? | Billing for time spent on fee petition is recoverable. | Fees on fees should be limited due to partial defeats. | EPIC awarded reasonable ‘fees on fees’ with a 15% across-the-board reduction. |
| Deduction for vague billing entries and overstaffing? | Some vague entries acceptable given context; time reasonably documented. | Many entries are cryptic and should be disallowed. | 40% deduction for vague entries; other staffing concerns rejected or partially accepted. |
| Whether to strike settlement communications referenced in EPIC's reply? | Settlement discussions were disclosed but not essential to fee decision. | Settlement offers should be sealed to avoid prejudice. | Court denied motion to strike; settlement references allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (establishes factors for FOIA fee entitlement and lodestar approach)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (partial prevailing claims may support full fees; related claims not fully severed)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (fee eligibility and entitlement framework for FOIA cases)
- Morley v. CIA, 719 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (four-factor test for whether fees should be awarded)
- National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec'y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (lodestar methodology and reasonable rates in fee awards)
- Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (guidance on fee adjustments and district court discretion)