Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia
52 A.3d 822
| D.C. | 2012Background
- FOIA fee awards are discretionary; DC FOIA does not automatically award fees to a prevailing party.
- FOP sought attorney’s fees after prevailing in a DC FOIA suit against the District regarding MPD emails.
- District delayed searches and failed to respond timely; partial productions occurred but full production extended over months.
- Trial court applied the federal four-factor test to assess entitlement to fees.
- Court held fee awards under DC FOIA should follow the federal four-factor framework as persuasive guidance.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of fees, finding no public benefit and no sufficient private incentive, with obduracy not alone justifying fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prevailing party automatically gets fees | FOP - automatic entitlement under DC FOIA | District - discretionary, not automatic | Not automatic; discretionary after eligibility established |
| Whether four-factor test applies to DC FOIA fees | FOP - apply federal four-factor test | District - DC FOIA follows federal framework | Yes; four-factor test applies and was properly used in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704 (D.C.Cir.1977) (establishes discretionary fee awards guided by four factors)
- Tax Analysts v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C.Cir.1992) (four-factor framework for fee judgments in FOIA cases)
- Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740 (D.C.Cir.1979) (four-factor test guidance for discretionary fees)
- LaSalle Extension Univ. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 627 F.2d 481 (2d Cir.1980) (four-factor test as a guide to fee awards; non-mechanistic approach)