Rosenfeld v. United States Department of Justice, 903 F. Supp. 2d 859

Background

Seth Rosenfeld sued DOJ and FBI under FOIA seeking disclosure of documents; settlement on Jan 12, 1996 required reprocessing/release and retained court jurisdiction to enforce compliance; settlement preserved Rosenfeld’s right to seek attorney fees and costs for all work in these cases and subsequent phases.
FBI released substantial records post-settlement (over 300,000 pages; >$1M processing costs) and Rosenfeld pursued challenges to compliance starting Sept 25, 2006.
Court ordered additional searches and a protocol for locating/producing abstract cards; Rosenfeld substantially prevailed on 2006 challenges, leading to more productions (41,373 records) through 2010.
Final judgment dismissing consolidated cases with prejudice entered March 16, 2012; Rosenfeld moved for attorney’s fees/costs under FOIA and the settlement agreement, seeking $167,718.32 (including fees for preparing the motion).
FBI opposed fees arguing the settlement restricted recovery to post-2006 proceedings and that hours/costs were not reasonable; court conducted a lodestar analysis and deducted nonrecoverable monitoring time, vague entries, and inflated fees, ultimately awarding $107,242.15 plus costs.
Court concluded Rosenfeld was eligible and entitled to fees, weighed four Long factors in his favor, and adjusted hours and rates to arrive at the final award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of fee recovery under the settlement agreement	Settlement does not waive entitlement to further fees; covers all subsequent phases.	Recovery limited to post-2006 proceedings under the agreement.	Eligible and entitled to fees for post-settlement work that Rosenfeld substantially prevailed in.
Whether monitoring/compliance time is recoverable	Monitoring of FBI compliance should be recoverable as related to the case.	Monitoring hours are not recoverable absent express contract or FOIA eligibility.	Monitoring hours not recoverable under FOIA or the Settlement; adjust lodestar accordingly.
Reasonableness of hours and billing practices	Hours were reasonably expended; billing records sufficiently detailed.	Hours include non-litigative monitoring, vague entries, and duplication; adjust.	Apply 10% overall haircut for inefficiencies; disallow Phase II monitoring hours; reduce Phase I by 10% for monitoring; adjust for billing vagueness.
Entitlement to fees under FOIA Long factors	Public benefit and journalist/public-interest objectives support fee award; commercial/private benefit weighs against award but is outweighed by public interest.	FOIA fees should reflect limited public-benefit and agency’s reasonable positions.	All four Long factors weigh in plaintiff’s favor; entitlement established.
Calculation of lodestar and final award	Lodestar based on claimed hours and rates; reasonable rates supported by market data.	Rates and hours inflated; need rigorous reduction.	Initial lodestar reduced via Phase I/II adjustments and a 30% cut for fees-on-fees; final award $105,166.32 + costs $2,075.83; court grants $107,242.15 total.

Key Cases Cited

Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Postal Serv., 700 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983) (two-step FOIA fee eligibility and entitlement framework; strong court discretion in awarding fees)
Long v. U.S. IRS, 932 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1991) (four-factor test guiding entitlement after eligibility)
Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010) (monitoring settlement-compliance fees may be recoverable under certain statutes)
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court may adjust lodestar for overstaffing/inefficiencies)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (establishes market-rate standard for hourly fees in lodestar)
Brown v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1990) (fee-on-fees recoveries permissible when reasonable)
Miller v. U.S. Dept. of State, 779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1985) (administrative inefficiency not a basis to deny FOIA fees; cost shifting principles)