Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbia, 113 A.3d 195

FOP submitted a FOIA request (emails among MPD officials and emails containing "recruiting") to OCTO on Feb 9, 2012; MPD acknowledged receipt and indicated it might need an extension.
MPD did not produce documents within the statutory period; on May 14, 2012 FOP sued under D.C. FOIA to compel a response and sought declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees.
On the day the District's opposition to FOP’s summary judgment was due (Dec 7, 2012), the District produced ~2,500 pages and a Vaughn index explaining withholdings.
The trial court found the production complete and dismissed FOP’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot, but retained and analyzed FOP’s request for attorneys’ fees under the catalyst theory.
The trial court held FOP’s claim was not insubstantial but found no causal nexus between the lawsuit and the District’s production (timing alone insufficient; District’s prior efforts, volume of documents, and backlog supported non-causation).
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed: production mooted relief for injunction/declaratory judgment, but fee claim was live; the appellate court upheld the trial court’s factual finding that FOP did not prove the suit caused the production.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of injunctive relief and declaratory judgment	Relief still warranted because production was untimely; declaration needed to vindicate rights	Production was complete and adequate, so injunction and declaratory relief are moot	Injunction and declaratory-judgment claims moot once production is complete and adequate; desire for vindication insufficient
Applicability of catalyst theory for fees under D.C. FOIA	Catalyst theory applies; producing documents after suit makes plaintiff eligible for fees	District argued catalyst inapplicable (citing Buckhannon and related cases)	Catalyst theory applies in D.C. FOIA cases (eligibility can be shown when suit causes agency surrender)
Causal nexus between lawsuit and agency production	Temporal proximity (production on day opposition due) indicates causation	Timing alone insufficient; District showed pre-suit efforts, heavy volume, and backlog making production likely regardless of suit	No causal nexus found: trial court’s factual finding that suit did not cause production was not clearly erroneous
Entitlement to fees even if eligible	If eligible, fees should be awarded under Fraternal Order test	Even if eligible, discretionary factors may deny fees	Court did not reach fee-entitlement merits because it affirmed lack of eligibility (no causation)

Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia, 52 A.3d 822 (D.C. 2012) (framework for discretionary fee entitlement under D.C. FOIA)
Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia, 82 A.3d 803 (D.C. 2014) (agency production can moot FOIA case when production is adequate)
McReady v. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 618 A.2d 609 (D.C. 1992) (recognizing catalyst theory in D.C. FOIA context)
Settlemire v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 898 A.2d 902 (D.C. 2006) (desire for vindication insufficient to avoid mootness)
Cornucopia Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 560 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2009) (production may moot declaratory relief but fee claims can survive if suit was catalyst)
Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (FOIA mootness principles when agency produces requested records)
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (limits on catalyst theory in non-FOIA contexts cited and distinguished)
Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (temporal relation and causation analysis for FOIA fee claims)