904 F. Supp. 2d 988
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Rosenfeld sued the FBI/DOJ under FOIA for release of records about Reagan era activities and related individuals; litigation spanned years and multiple summary judgment rounds.
- Court entered final judgment in Rosenfeld’s favor on March 28, 2012; noted the FBI’s extensive disclosure efforts during compliance.
- Rosenfeld seeks attorney’s fees and costs under FOIA’s fee-shifting provision; requests total $442,917.62 (includes $85,570 for fee-motion work).
- FBI objected to fee-shifting on grounds of ineligibility, lack of substantial relief, and unreasonableness of the requested amount.
- Court found Rosenfeld substantially prevailed and that the agency’s withholding had no reasonable basis in law, warranting fee entitlement; overall lodestar adjustments yielded a final award of $363,217.60 in fees and costs.
- Court acknowledged public benefit from disclosures and Rosenfeld’s scholarly/public-interest journalism status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosenfeld is eligible for FOIA fees. | Rosenfeld’s litigation produced relief and prompted voluntary disclosures. | Rosenfeld did not substantially prevail or obtain sufficient relief. | Rosenfeld eligible for fees. |
| Whether Rosenfeld is entitled to fees at all. | The case produced substantial disclosures and a catalytic effect on release. | Even with disclosures, entitlement is not guaranteed. | Rosenfeld entitled to fees after balancing Long factors. |
| Whether the requested lodestar amount is reasonable. | Hours and rates reflect market rates for similar San Francisco-area work. | Rates are excessive; should use Laffey matrix; hours overstate work. | Initial lodestar reasonable, with adjustments for duplication, mixed success, and fees-on-fees; net final award set. |
| Whether adjustments for duplicative time, mixed success, and billing judgment are appropriate. | Duplication and inefficiencies justify adjustments within the lodestar. | Adjustments should be limited; hours must be tightly scrutinized. | Deducted duplicative time, reduced for mixed success, and applied a general 10% haircut. |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Postal Serv., 700 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983) (fee eligibility and considerations for FOIA awards; not automatic)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (assessing causal nexus and timing in FOIA releases; material to substantial prevail concept)
- Morley v. U.S.C.I.A., 828 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.D.C. 2011) (author/journalist fees; considerations of commercial vs. scholarly interest)
- Long v. U.S. I.R.S., 932 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1991) (four-factor test for entitlement to FOIA fees; public-benefit focus)
- Hemenway v. Hughes, 601 F. Supp. 1002 (D.D.C. 1985) (reasonableness of searches and disclosure standards under FOIA)
- Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973) (lodestar concept and reasonable compensation baseline)