Case Detail
Case Title | Gahagan v. United States Customs and Border Protection et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Eastern District of Louisiana | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | New Orleans | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 2:2014cv02619 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2014-11-15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2015-11-03 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Michael W. Gahagan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Immigration attorney Michael Gahagan submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for records concerning his client, Theodore Weegar, who was in removal proceedings, but heard nothing further from CBP. Gahagan also requested records on Weegar from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE indicated it had sent his request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for processing. Gahagan filed an administrative appeal of ICE's decision not to search its own records, but heard nothing further from ICE. Gahagan also submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records on Weegar. State contacted Gahagan and asked for further information before it would process the request. Gahagan regarded that letter as a denial and filed an appeal. He heard nothing further concerning his appeal. Gahagan then filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Customs and Border Protection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Department of State | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [46] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Louisiana has ruled that the magistrate judge erred in using the standard for granting a preliminary injunction when considering a FOIA suit filed by immigration attorney Michael Gahagan against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the State Department for records pertaining to his client Theodore Weegar. Because Gahagan had requested injunctive relief if appropriate, the magistrate judge decided he was requesting a preliminary injunction blocking the agencies from refusing to disclose responsive records. As a result, the magistrate judge found that Gahagan had failed to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to an injunction. The magistrate judge's report recommended that the court rule against Gahagan and further order the agencies to provide supplemental affidavits supporting their exemption claims. The magistrate judge was persuaded by two district court decisions from the D.C. Circuit in which the plaintiffs had requested preliminary injunctions as well as summary judgment. Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown noted that "Gahagan has not moved for a preliminary injunction. Rather, his two motions seek relief that falls squarely within FOIA's statutory framework. The motions are governed by the standards and burdens of proof that apply to a motion for summary judgment in the FOIA context." Reviewing the case as a straightforward FOIA case, Brown first rejected Gahagan's claim that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had improperly referred records to ICE, prolonging the time for processing his request. Noting that his time delay contention was moot because ICE and the other agencies had already responded to his request, Brown pointed out that "ICE's 'routing' of Gahagan's FOIA request is not a per se violation of FOIA." She then found that both ICE and CBP had failed to adequately explain their searches and ordered them to supplement their affidavits. Gahagan argued ICE's search had located responsive records, but that the agency had then concluded that some of them were non-responsive. Addressing the issue, Brown observed that "if the agency prepares and executes an appropriate query, then the information located and produced as a result of the query should be responsive. ICE has not explained why it found the above-described documents when executing Gahagan's search, or why it ultimately redacted them and produced them to Gahagan." She ordered the agency to provide the documents for in camera review. Brown found ICE had properly withheld records concerning databases accessible in an NCIC search under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The State Department had withheld two records concerning a consular officer's research when reviewing Weegar's visa applications. Brown agreed with the agency that the records were properly withheld under Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing ยง 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Opinion/Order [57]Issues: Search - Referral, Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Louisiana has ruled that U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not properly respond to immigration attorney Michael Gahagan's FOIA request for records concerning his client Theodore Weegar. The agency originally told Gahagan that it did not have a Form I-826 Notice to Appear for Weegar because such a form was issued only when an individual was arrested or detained by CBP and Weegar was neither arrested nor detained by the agency. The agency initially refused to provide a blank Form I-826, although it later provided a redacted version. The court noted that "defendants have not provided any support for their argument that a document may be withheld because it was not served upon Mr. Weegar." The court added that "defendants have not met their burden of establishing that CBP's decision to withhold Form I-826 on the grounds that it was non-responsive to Plaintiff's request was valid. Therefore, the Court finds that the withheld document, Form I-826, was responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request." Addressing the redacted form the agency disclosed later, the court pointed out that "they have not provided any justification for the withholding of this information in either their opposition or in any affidavit." After reviewing the documents in camera, the court indicated that the redactions were similar to those the agency withheld from another form under Exemption 7 (law enforcement records). However, the court observed that "in redacting the I-826, Defendants rely solely upon the argument that the document itself was non-responsive to Plaintiff's request. They make no argument regarding what exemption justifies the redactions that have been made to the I-826. Accordingly, the Court orders CBP to produce any reasonably segregable portion of the I-826."
Opinion/Order [71]Issues: Agency Record FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Louisiana has awarded immigration attorney Michael Gahagan attorney's fees for his FOIA litigation against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for records pertaining to his client Theodore Weegar, who was facing deportation. Gahagan sent FOIA requests to USCIS, ICE, and CBP, as well as the Department of State for records about Weegar. ICE referred the request to USCIS and Gahagan filed suit after the agencies failed to respond. He eventually got most of the documents he was requesting and then filed a motion for attorney's fees. The court found that because Gahagan has prevailed on some issues he was eligible for fees. Although the agencies argued that he was using FOIA as a substitute for discovery, which is not available in immigration proceedings, the court indicated that "the public benefit factor weighs in favor of an award of attorney's fees because the disclosure of the documents contributes to the legitimacy of the immigration proceedings." Noting the Supreme Court had held that agencies were to construe the exemptions narrowly, the court concluded that the agencies' intransience and redactions were unreasonable. The court then found that Gahagan was not entitled to an hourly rate of $300, but rather a reduced rate of $200 an hour. The court also reduced the number of hours Gahagan had claimed, explaining that there was no evidence that he had exercised discretion in calculating the hours. Rejecting Gahagan's claim that he was an experienced FOIA litigator, the court observed 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 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." As a result, the court reduced the number of hours by 25 percent, reducing his request from $34,777 to $16,485.
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Calculation of award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|