286 F. Supp. 3d 25
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Catholic Charities filed a FOIA request (Feb 2015) seeking documents about USCIS processing of FOIA requests for asylum-officer assessments; DHS delayed and produced no responsive Guide until litigation.
- Catholic Charities sued; after motions and supplemental Vaughn material, the court ordered production of the FOIA Processing Guide and found Catholic Charities substantially prevailed on its ninth cause of action.
- The Court previously found Catholic Charities eligible and entitled to fees and costs but directed further briefing on the amount; DHS contested the fee quantum and argued the Guide had no public value and DHS acted reasonably.
- The parties disputed the reasonable hourly rate: Catholic Charities sought LSI Laffey Matrix rates; DHS argued for the (new) USAO Matrix rates.
- The court analyzed FOIA fee eligibility/entitlement factors, considered competing economic declarations and market data, and applied the lodestar approach (hours × prevailing hourly rate).
- The court awarded reduced fees: $5,255.78 in attorney’s fees and $400 in costs, rejecting LSI Laffey rates and applying USAO Matrix rates, excluding some nonproductive hours, and awarding reasonable "fees-on-fees" (with a proportional reduction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Catholic Charities substantially prevailed and is eligible/entitled to FOIA fees | Catholic Charities prevailed on the ninth cause and is eligible and entitled to fees and costs | DHS conceded substantial prevailing on the ninth cause but challenged entitlement amount and public-value factor | Court reiterated eligibility and entitlement; all four Tax Analysts factors favor Catholic Charities (public benefit, nature of interest, lack of commercial motive, agency recalcitrance) |
| Proper prevailing hourly rate to use | LSI Laffey Matrix (LSI-updated) rates are presumptively reasonable and reflect market for complex federal litigation | USAO Matrix rates better reflect current D.C. market and newer survey methodology; LSI relies on older/less-documented survey | Court applied USAO Matrix rates (finding DHS rebutted presumption for LSI); LSI rates rejected as unsupported here |
| Reasonableness of hours claimed (including "fees on fees") | 17.25 total hours (8 for merits, 9.25 for fee petition) are reasonable; exclude only unsuccessful items | DHS did not challenge merits-hours but urged reductions to fees-on-fees as excessive and to reflect limited success | Court awarded hours for merits except excluded 3 hours spent on an earlier summary judgment motion that was denied; awarded full 9.25 fees-on-fees but reduced fees-on-fees proportionally to reflect rate reductions |
| Amount of fee award (lodestar calculation and adjustments) | Apply LSI rates to hours requested and award full requested sum ($13,643 requested) | Apply USAO rates, exclude nonproductive time, and proportionally reduce fees-on-fees; award less than requested | Court calculated lodestar with USAO rates, excluded the 3 non-productive hours, adjusted fees-on-fees proportionally, and awarded $5,255.78 plus $400 costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (describing FOIA fee-eligibility and entitlement framework)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir.) (lodestar and fee award principles in FOIA context)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing presumptive reasonableness of LSI Laffey Matrix where supported and unrebutted)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (requiring fee applicant to provide prevailing market evidence and allowing defendant rebuttal)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (prevailing market rates govern fee awards regardless of nonprofit representation)
- McKinley v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 739 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.) (four-factor test for fee entitlement under Tax Analysts)
- Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir.) (public-benefit analysis and agency recalcitrance in fee entitlement)
- Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir.) (cases where requested records had no public value and fees denied)