Trotter v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Civil Action No. 2019-2008
| D.D.C. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Trotter (a data journalist, CareSet Journal) filed a FOIA request to CMS seeking email domains and corresponding NPI numbers for CMS-registered healthcare providers; CMS initially withheld full email addresses on privacy grounds.
- Trotter narrowed the request to domains; CMS still withheld most domains invoking FOIA Exemption 6 (privacy).
- On Feb. 8, 2021 the court granted partial summary judgment to Trotter, ordering disclosure only of domains for providers who participate in CMS electronic health-information exchange; CMS produced 203,939 lines (out of ~6.38 million providers).
- Trotter moved for $189,685.85 in attorneys’ fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i); CMS conceded eligibility but opposed entitlement.
- The court applied the D.C. Circuit’s four-factor entitlement test (public benefit, commercial benefit to plaintiff, plaintiff’s interest, reasonableness of agency withholding) and denied fees, finding no meaningful public benefit and that CMS acted reasonably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trotter is entitled to FOIA attorney's fees (entitlement balancing test) | Trotter substantially prevailed and the litigation produced public-value disclosures and guidance; fees are warranted | CMS conceded eligibility but argued fees are not warranted because public benefit is minimal and agency’s withholding was reasonable | Denied—though eligible, Trotter not entitled after balancing the four factors |
| Public benefit from the litigation | Released domains enable oversight (waste/fraud detection, epidemiology, assessing provider–organization links) and dissemination via Trotter’s outlets | Much of the released data was already public; Trotter failed to show a realistic ex ante nexus to CMS oversight or how domains would produce public-value information | Weighed heavily for CMS; Trotter failed to show sufficient public benefit |
| Commercial benefit and nature of plaintiff’s interest | Trotter is a data journalist with scholarly/public-interest aims; journalistic status favors fee award | CMS pointed to CareSet Journal’s commercial connections to argue private benefit | Factors (2nd and 3rd) favor Trotter (journalistic interest) but carry limited weight in the overall balance |
| Reasonableness of CMS’s withholding | CMS unreasonably withheld domains and failed to segregate disclosures for information-exchange participants | CMS had a colorable legal basis to withhold domains on privacy grounds and acted in good faith; only a small subset needed release | Weighed heavily for CMS; agency’s position was legally reasonable and not recalcitrant |
Key Cases Cited
- LaSalle Extension Univ. v. FTC, 627 F.2d 481 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (FOIA fee awards encourage public-benefit litigation)
- Tax Analysts v. Dep't of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (sets four-factor entitlement test)
- Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (attorney-fee inquiry centers on whether fees are necessary to implement FOIA)
- Morley v. CIA, 894 F.3d 389 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (discusses prevailing-party/eligibility principles)
- Kwoka v. IRS, 989 F.3d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (journalistic/scholarly interests generally favor fee awards)
- Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (public-benefit prong requires showing the documents’ specific public value)
- Trotter v. Ctr. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., 517 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2021) (earlier summary-judgment opinion ordering limited disclosure)
- McKinley v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 739 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (reasonableness and weight of entitlement factors)