Simmons v. U.S. Department of State, Civil Action No. 2019-2058

Samara L. A. Simmons, a longstanding Department of State employee, filed over 25 FOIA and Privacy Act requests from 2016 to 2020, many overlapping and interrelated, seeking records about herself from various State offices.
She challenged the State’s response to five specific FOIA requests in this litigation, focusing on requests made in 2016 and 2019.
The State produced responsive records both before and after Simmons initiated litigation, with some releases connected to EEO settlement negotiations and others following routine FOIA processing.
Simmons sought an award of attorneys’ fees, claiming that her lawsuit was the catalytic cause of State’s post-complaint document productions.
The State argued that records were produced due to ongoing administrative processes and backlogs, not because of the litigation.
The sole remaining issue before the court was whether Simmons was entitled to attorneys’ fees under FOIA’s “substantially prevailed” standard, as all other disputes over document production had been resolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for attorneys’ fees under FOIA (§552(a)(4)(E)(i))	Simmons substantially prevailed under the catalyst theory.	State produced documents due to routine processing, not lawsuit.	Simmons did not substantially prevail; no fees owed.
Causation under catalyst theory	Litigation prompted State’s change in position/record production.	No causal nexus; processing began and continued pre-litigation.	No causation found; suit not cause of disclosure.
Relevance of pre-litigation productions	Pre-litigation releases addressed unlitigated, unrelated requests.	Productions responsive to litigated requests, as evidenced.	Court credits State; pre-litigation releases count.
Impact of administrative delays and backlogs	Delays were purposeful; litigation pressure was necessary.	Delays stemmed from administrative backlog, COVID-19, volume.	Delays administrative, not due to suit.

Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (sets out FOIA fee-shifting standard and catalyst theory requirements).
Grand Canyon Trust v. Bernhardt, 947 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (clarifies causation standards under catalyst theory for FOIA fees).
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Young, 909 F.2d 546 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (plaintiff must show act would not have occurred absent lawsuit).
Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (filing suit and subsequent document release, alone, is insufficient for catalyst theory).
Bigwood v. Defense Intelligence Agency, 770 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D.D.C. 2011) (FOIA productions often result from ongoing processing, not litigation causation).