Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration
266 F. Supp. 3d 162
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- EPIC submitted a FOIA request (Feb 2015) to the DEA seeking Initial Privacy Assessments (IPAs) and non-public Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for DEA IT systems that collect identifiable personal information.
- DEA missed the statutory production deadline; EPIC sued and the court ordered the DEA to produce non-exempt responsive records by August 27, 2015.
- DEA produced one PIA for a defunct system and 13 DOJ OPCL determination letters; EPIC identified four letters recommending PIAs that DEA had not produced and requested a supplemental search.
- The DEA re-ran its original search (same terms/databases) with no new results, then conducted an expanded supplemental search after court direction, still producing no additional records.
- The Court found EPIC a prevailing party only as to the June 2015 disclosure order (eligible for fees), but not for the later summary-judgment order; the Court held EPIC entitled to fees overall but limited recovery and required fee recalculation using the updated USAO rate matrix and other adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPIC "substantially prevailed" for fee eligibility | EPIC secured a court-ordered production deadline and thus prevailed | DEA argued it would have produced records regardless and thus EPIC did not substantially prevail | Court: EPIC prevailed based on the June 2015 court order (eligibility); not entitled to fees based on the later summary-judgment order |
| Whether EPIC is entitled to fees (Morley factors) | EPIC: public benefit, nonprofit mission, no commercial gain; request justified | DEA: EPA conducted reasonable searches and acted in good faith so factors weigh against fees | Court: three factors (public benefit, noncommercial interest) favor EPIC; DEA’s conduct is neutral; EPIC entitled to fees |
| Appropriate hourly rate matrix to calculate lodestar | EPIC: use LSI-Laffey (national legal services CPI) | DEA: use updated USAO matrix (PPI-based, D.C. market) | Court: adopt updated USAO matrix for 2015–2017 rates and order EPIC to recalculate fees accordingly |
| Scope and amount of recoverable fees (including "fees on fees") | EPIC sought full requested fees and fees for briefing the fee motion | DEA argued many hours were excessive, duplicative, and post-cutoff should be excluded | Court: exclude hours after Oct 22, 2015 (no summary-judgment success); disallow some multi-attorney conference time (limit to two attorneys); reduce fees-on-fees proportionally to overall reductions; order recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. F.B.I., 522 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir.) (court-ordered disclosure can render plaintiff eligible for fees)
- Davy v. C.I.A., 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir.) (adopting a jointly proposed production schedule and its order changes legal relationship for fee eligibility)
- Edmonds v. F.B.I., 417 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial order requiring production supports fee eligibility)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (FOIA fee eligibility and revival of voluntary-change theory)
- Morley v. C.I.A., 719 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir.) (four-factor entitlement test for FOIA fees)
- Tax Analysts v. Dep’t of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir.) (district court discretion in balancing fee factors)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (lodestar and proportionality principles for fee awards)
- Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial guidance on reasoned exercise of discretion in fee awards)
- Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S.) (fees for litigation over fees are subject to proportional reduction based on success)