Case Detail
Case Title | Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services, Inc. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Western District of Texas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | El Paso | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 3:2019cv00236 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-08-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-10-19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Frank Montalvo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services, Inc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services, a non-profit organization working with migrants in El Paso, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for records concerning policies under the Migrant Protection Protocols applicable to access to counsel DMRS also requested expedited processing. After hearing nothing further from the agency, DMRS filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Expedited processing, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [72] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Texas has ruled that Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services is entitled to attorney's fees for its FOIA litigation against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for records concerning why ICE field offices in Southern Texas prevented DMRS from handing out information to migrants about their asylum rights after the Migrant Protection Protocols, which required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they waited for U.S. immigration judges to hear their asylum cases, were implemented. Although ICE was apparently unaware of the request until DMRS filed suit, ICE identified 92 pages of potentially responsive documents. The agency provided 10 pages in full, 28 pages with redactions. Another 14 pages were deemed duplicates while 40 pages were referred to other agencies or components. An administrative error delayed the referral process. ICE asked for five more extensions but ultimately disclosed 33 of the 40 referred pages. After holding a trial, the court concluded that ICE had not conducted an adequate search and it had not justified its Exemption 5 (privileges) claims. The court ordered ICE to conduct a new search, which yielded 86,000 potentially responsive records. ICE agreed to assign 30 percent of its FOIA staff to conduct the first line review full-time. ICE also assigned 15 attorneys for a second line review. ICE estimated the review would require four months. ICE did not appeal the order. Finding that DMRS had substantially prevailed for purposes of eligibility for an attorney's fees award, the court turned to a discussion of the four factors used in assessing a fee award â€" the public interest in disclosure, the commercial or personal interest in disclosure, and the reasonableness of the agency's withholding. The court found the public interest in disclosure was high, noting that "as this information is both of public concern and useful to political decision making, the diffusion of documents will spread beyond legal service providers to the wider public." The court indicated that DRMS had no commercial or personal interest in the disclosure of the records. Turning to the reasonableness of the agency's processing of the request, the court found that both the agency's search and its exemption claims were insufficient. The court noted that "there is no reasonable basis in law to believe ICE's search was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive documents." The court added that "the returned search forms indicate different search terms were used across program offices without any apparent reason for the lack of uniformity." The court found ICE fared no better on the issue of exemptions. The court pointed out that "ICE did less than the bare minimum to justify its exemptions and instead attempted to shift the burden to the court and to DMRS. This forced DMRS to expend considerably more in attorney labor and fees to litigate exemptions to documents produced at the eleventh hour and without the easy remedy of a Vaughn index." The court granted DMRS $51,937.50 in fees.
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Reasonable Basis for Withholding | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
030 Order Denying Pl MSJ 043 Pl Proposed Findings of Fact and Concl of Law 044 Findings of Fact and Concl of Law 072 Order Granting App for Attorney Fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|