311 F. Supp. 3d 381
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Grand Canyon Trust (nonprofit) submitted FOIA requests (Aug 2, 2016) to DOI Office of the Secretary (DOI‑OS) and BLM for documents related to Secretarial Order 3338.
- Both agencies placed requests on "complex" tracks, produced partial releases (DOI‑OS: 222 pages in Dec 2016; BLM: 12 pages in Dec 2016) before suit, and continued rolling productions thereafter.
- Plaintiff sued on May 9, 2017. After suit but without court orders, DOI‑OS produced additional pages (total 6,366) and BLM produced large releases (total 58,987), resolving document production disputes by agreement.
- Plaintiff sought $68,047.82 in attorney's fees under FOIA § 552(a)(4)(E), relying on the "catalyst" theory that filing suit caused the agencies to release records.
- Defendants argued plaintiff did not "substantially prevail" because productions began before suit and agency delay was attributable to preexisting FOIA backlogs and diligent processing.
- Court denied fee motion, holding plaintiff was ineligible because it failed to show the litigation caused the releases or changed the legal relationship with the agencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff "substantially prevailed" under FOIA via the "catalyst" theory (eligibility for fees) | Filing suit caused agencies to comply and negotiate release deadlines, so suit substantially precipitated disclosure | Agencies had begun processing and made partial releases before suit; delays were due to unavoidable backlogs and diligence, not litigation | Denied — plaintiff did not substantially prevail; causation not shown |
| Whether post‑filing voluntary disclosures without court order make plaintiff eligible for fees | Post‑complaint disclosures demonstrate litigation was catalyst for release | Voluntary/administrative progress independent of litigation breaks causal link; early voluntary compliance should not be penalized | Denied — releases were triggered by administrative processing, not necessity of litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discusses limited purpose of FOIA fee‑shifting and catalyst theory context)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (describes eligibility/entitlement two‑prong inquiry for FOIA fees)
- Church of Scientology v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (establishes that plaintiff must show suit caused agency to release documents)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FBI, 522 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (plaintiff substantially prevails when court order changes legal relationship and awards relief)
- Pub. Law Educ. Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 744 F.2d 181 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (timing alone insufficient; more than post hoc causation required)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (held catalyst theory not generally permissible; Congress later restored catalyst concept for FOIA)