Harvey v. Holder, 178 F. Supp. 3d 5

Plaintiff Edward Harvey, a federal inmate, filed a FOIA request with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on April 14, 2014 about processing of administrative complaints.
BOP acknowledged the request and, after administrative processing began, had not produced records by July 21, 2014, when Harvey sued in district court.
Nine days after suit (July 30, 2014) BOP produced eleven pages of responsive records (one partially redacted); Harvey said he was satisfied but continued to seek a judicial declaration that BOP’s delay violated FOIA timelines.
The Court previously dismissed the case as moot after BOP’s production; Harvey then moved for an award of costs, arguing his suit was the catalyst for the release.
The Court ordered supplemental factual submissions; BOP’s declarations showed searches and processing began before the suit and that most work was completed prior to July 21, 2014.
The Court denied Harvey’s motion for costs, finding he did not establish the required causal nexus between his lawsuit and the agency’s disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harvey "substantially prevailed" under FOIA’s catalyst provision (i.e., whether his lawsuit caused BOP to release records)	Harvey: filing suit was the catalyst that caused BOP to produce the records and thus he is entitled to costs	BOP: searches and processing began before suit; disclosure resulted from delayed administrative processing, not the lawsuit	Denied — Harvey failed to show causation; BOP’s pre-suit processing timeline demonstrates the suit did not cause the release
Whether Harvey’s claim was "insubstantial" under FOIA (relevance to catalyst theory)	Harvey contended his claim was substantial because it prompted disclosure	BOP argued the claim was insubstantial (Court noted BOP’s argument but did not reach it)	Not decided — Court resolved the motion on lack of causation and did not reach insubstantiality

Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 610 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (describes FOIA fee-shifting and the post-2007 catalyst statutory framework)
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (articulates the catalyst theory and causation requirement for fee awards)
Cox v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 601 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (explains that delayed but diligent administrative processing negates catalyst causation)
Short v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 613 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2009) (denies fees where disclosure resulted from delayed administrative processing rather than litigation)
Calypso Cargo Ltd. v. U.S. Coast Guard, 850 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) (denies fees when agency had begun processing before suit)
Bigwood v. Def. Intelligence Agency, 770 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D.D.C. 2011) (denies fees where agency timeline showed processing preceded litigation)