Case Detail
Case Title | Gahagan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Eastern District of Louisiana | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | New Orleans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 2:2014cv02233 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2014-09-27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2015-07-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Michael W. Gahagan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Michael Gahagan , an immigration attorney, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the alien file for his client Miztle Amador-Castillo, currently being held pending removal proceedings. The agency released 51 pages, but withheld 17 pages entirely. Gahagan filed an appeal of the agency's decision, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, he filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees, Litigation - Vaughn index | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [27] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Louisiana has ruled that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is legally responsible for justifying the withholding of portions of records referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration attorney Michael Gahagan requested the alien file for Miztle Amado-Castillo, whom Gahagan was representing in a removal proceeding. USCIS disclosed 209 pages in full and 10 pages with redactions, withheld 17 pages, and referred 51 pages to ICE for direct response to Gahagan. Gahagan appealed and USCIS disclosed an additional 17 pages. Gahagan then filed suit against USCIS, arguing the agency's exemption claims were improper and that the referral to ICE had resulted in an improper delay. ICE emailed Gahagan the 51 referred pages with redactions during the litigation, including withholding 10 pages because they were labeled as duplicates of pages Gahagan had already received. Gahagan argued that withholding documents as duplicates was not permissible under FOIA and that the government had not justified the ICE response except for its unsworn explanation identifying various exemptions. USCIS claimed it had acted properly and that such referrals were common. Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown found the agency had conducted an adequate search, but agreed with Gahagan that withholding documents as duplicates was not permissible under FOIA. Johnson pointed out that "the Court has not found any language in FOIA capable of supporting an exemption on the basis that a document is a 'duplicate' of another, and even if any such language existed, Defendant has not furnished the court with any information that permits it to determine de novo whether the documents actually are duplicates of documents already disclosed." USCIS argued that Gahagan was trying to force ICE, a non-party to the suit, to defend its response. But Gahagan claimed that "even if an agency referred documents to other agencies for review and processing, the agency is still responsible for explaining their nonproduction." Relying primarily on McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1978), where the D.C. Circuit ruled that the CIA could not absolve itself of responsibility for responding to McGehee's request by referring documents to other agencies and that such a referral practice was improper when it interfered with the requester's ability to obtain timely access to the records, Johnson explained that to analyze USCIS's claim that Gahagan was trying to obtain an order against ICE "the Court must first resolve the logically antecedent question of whether ICE or Defendant is responsible for responding to Gahagan's FOIA request." She noted that "it is undisputed that Gahagan has been unable to obtain the 'duplicate' documents despite months of waiting and, now, litigation. Therefore, the net effect of the referral at issue here is 'significantly to impair' Gahagan's ability to obtain the records and 'significantly to increase the amount of time he must wait to obtain them,' rendering the referral a 'withholding' under McGehee. Defendant has offered no facts or argument that reasonably explains its procedure, particularly in light of the impediments to disclosure that the procedure has created here. Therefore, the 10 pages of 'duplicate' documents have been improperly withheld, and the responsibility to account for them rests with Defendant, not ICE."
Opinion/Order [59]Issues: Withholding not related to exemption claims, Search - Referral FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Louisiana has ruled that immigration attorney Michael Gahagan is entitled to $13,138 in attorney's fees for his litigation against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to obtain records from the alien file of one of his clients. While the 51 withheld records turned out to be duplicates of other records Gahagan had received, the Fifth Circuit found in favor of Gahagan on that issue, noting that FOIA had no provision for withholding records because they were duplicates. USCIS argued Gahagan was not entitled to fees because the request was made to further the interests of his client. The court rejected the claim, noting that "here, Gahagan has no other option in obtaining these records. . .[T]he fact that Gahagan used FOIA in the instant litigation in order to obtain records to be used in a deportation proceeding does not weigh against an award of attorney's fees." The court also indicated that the Fifth Circuit had found the agency's withholding of the duplicate records improper. Having found Gahagan was eligible for fees, the court reviewed Gahagan's $25, 350 fee request. Gahagan had requested $300 an hour, which the court lowered to $200 an hour. The court also found Gahagan's claimed hours excessive. Reducing his number of hours by 25 percent, the court noted that "Gahagan's time records reflect the hours of an attorney who has to research and draft motions working from a blank slate, rather than an attorney with expertise in the subject matter and experience in FOIA litigation. Although it is prudent to ensure there wasn't any intervening caselaw, the sheer number of hours spent on researching and drafting in an area Gahagan claims to have expertise in is excessive."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Reasonable Basis for Withholding, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Calculation of award | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|