Grand Canyon Trust v. David Bernhardt
947 F.3d 94
D.C. Cir.2020Background
- Grand Canyon Trust (Trust) filed FOIA requests with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Office of the Secretary of the Interior in August 2016; most responsive records were produced only after the Trust sued.
- The Trust sought attorney’s fees under FOIA’s amended fee-shifting provision (OPEN Government Act of 2007), relying on the statute’s second prong (voluntary/unilateral agency change in position, often called the “catalyst” theory).
- District Court found the agencies had already been processing the requests, had given timeline estimates before suit, and ultimately produced records roughly on those schedules; it denied fees for failure to prove the suit caused a change in position.
- On appeal, the parties disputed the standard of review for factual causation (Trust: de novo; agencies: clear error).
- The D.C. Circuit held (1) factual findings about whether litigation caused an agency change are reviewed for clear error, and (2) the district court did not clearly err in finding the Trust failed to prove causation or a meaningful acceleration caused by the lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for whether litigation caused agency change | Review de novo | Review factual finding for clear error | Clear error applies to causation findings; de novo applies to legal questions (e.g., statutory interpretation) |
| Whether Trust’s lawsuit caused agencies to change position or accelerate production | Suit produced a "sudden acceleration" in processing and thus qualifies under FOIA §552(a)(4)(E)(ii)(II) | Agencies produced on schedules they predicted pre-suit; any timing variance was minor and not caused by the litigation | Plaintiff failed to show causation or meaningful acceleration; district court did not clearly err; fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (rejected catalyst theory for fee awards absent court-ordered relief)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussed FOIA fee eligibility and catalyst theory after OPEN Government Act)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. F.B.I., 522 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (interpreting effect of 2007 amendment on fee eligibility)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (causation as factual question reviewed for clear error)
- Church of Scientology v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (articulating test whether litigation caused agency to release records)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Young, 909 F.2d 546 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (but-for causation standard under Equal Access to Justice Act reviewed for clear error)
- Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (de novo review for legal questions about fee eligibility)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)