Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice
774 F. Supp. 2d 225
D.D.C.2011Background
- Judicial Watch filed FOIA request with DOJ seeking records related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
- DOJ released some records and withheld others under FOIA exemptions; the parties agreed to a process including a Vaughn index and set deadlines.
- DOJ moved for summary judgment on Exemption Five; court granted partial relief and denied others, leading to further negotiations and eventual dismissal with some documents released.
- Judicial Watch thereafter sought attorney fees; DOJ opposed on the grounds of limited relief obtained and other considerations.
- The court ultimately awarded Judicial Watch $26,601.25 in attorney fees and $250 in costs on March 31, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judicial Watch substantially prevailed | Judicial Watch prevailed via catalyst or Buckhannon change | Prevailed only if Buckhannon standard met | Judicial Watch substantially prevailed under Buckhannon standard |
| Whether the August 7, 2006 minute order and joint stipulation awarded relief on the merits | Order approved stipulation requiring production by dates | Order was procedural, not a merits relief | Relief deemed awarded on the merits via August 7, 2006 order |
| Whether Judicial Watch is entitled to attorney fees under the four-factor test | Public benefit and non-commercial nature favor fees; reasonable withholding supports it | Without broader relief, fees may be denied | All four factors weighed in favor of awarding fees |
| Whether the lodestar amount should be adjusted downward for limited relief obtained | No discrete losses; lodestar reasonable | Suggests 50% general reduction due to limited relief | No downward adjustment; full lodestar amount awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union v. Dep't of Energy, 288 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Buckhannon framework preceding OPEN Act disclosure standard)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (abolished catalyst theory for fee eligibility; Buckhannon standard)
- Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (approval of joint stipulation constitutes relief)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FBI, 522 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (substantial relief via court-approved stipulation; catalyst/ Buckhannon discussion)
- Campaign for Responsible Transplantation v. FDA, 511 F.3d 187 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency actions post-litigation can affect fee eligibility)
- Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (considerations for FEEs in FOIA litigation)
- Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (four-factor test for fee awards in FOIA actions)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar adjustments and billing judgment standard)