316 F. Supp. 3d 320
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- EIP submitted a FOIA request on May 18, 2017 seeking Scott Pruitt's meetings with outside parties and travel records from Feb. 21, 2017 through the request date.
- EPA's Office of the Executive Secretariat (OEX) identified calendars and travel vouchers as responsive; OEX obtained a partially responsive calendar the same day but needed additional records from the Immediate Office of the Administrator (OA).
- Due to staff turnover, a large FOIA backlog, and later disruptions (including hurricanes), EPA produced calendar pages to EIP on June 19, 2017 (same day EIP filed suit) and produced reviewed travel vouchers on July 18, 2017; some redactions were later revised and re-released (Dec. 5, 2017).
- EIP then informed EPA it was satisfied and moved for attorneys’ fees under FOIA’s fee-shifting provision, claiming it had “substantially prevailed.”
- The court evaluated eligibility (whether litigation caused the agency to release records) before entitlement and denied fees, finding no causal nexus and that EPA exercised due diligence in processing the request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EIP "substantially prevailed" under the FOIA catalyst theory | Filing suit caused EPA to change position and produce responsive records and to remove discretionary redactions | EPA had begun searching and producing records before suit and acted with due diligence; releases were not caused by litigation | Denied — no evidence of causation beyond temporal proximity; EIP did not substantially prevail |
| Whether a "sudden acceleration" in production shows causation | EPA’s production shortly before filing its answer shows litigation prompted faster processing | Delay was due to unavoidable administrative burdens (staffing, backlog, hurricanes) and EPA had been working on the request pre-suit | Denied — delays were unavoidable and EPA had been diligently processing the request before litigation |
| Whether the court’s August 21, 2017 scheduling order constitutes a qualifying "judicial order" for fee eligibility | The scheduling order changed parties’ legal relationship and thus qualifies as a court order entitling EIP to fees | The order merely required the parties to confer and submit a briefing schedule and did not compel production or change legal rights | Denied — the scheduling order did not provide relief or alter legal relationship |
| Whether court should proceed to entitlement factors | EIP asserted public benefit, improper withholding, and discretionary disclosures weigh in its favor | EPA argued no entitlement because EIP is not eligible under the first step; entitlement unnecessary to decide if eligibility fails | Court did not reach entitlement because eligibility failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Scientology v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (defines “substantially prevailed” and causal nexus requirement)
- Cox v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 601 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (unavoidable administrative delay negates catalyst theory)
- Weisberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (mere filing of complaint and subsequent release insufficient for causation)
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 750 F.2d 117 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (absent evidence, agencies may simply be responding to requests)
- Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., 794 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2011) (sudden acceleration can support catalyst theory when litigation prompts disclosure)
- EPIC v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 218 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.D.C. 2016) (scheduling order may qualify when it compels production by a date)
- Judicial Watch v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 770 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (not all procedural FOIA defects warrant relief; context matters)