Case Detail
Case Title | WP COMPANY LLC v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2020cv01082 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2020-04-24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-12-09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | WP COMPANY LLC doing business as WASHINGTON POST | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Washington Post submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for two cables sent from the U.S. Mission in China about former counselor of Environment, Science, Technology and Health Brian "Rick" Switzer's visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Washington Post also requested expedited processing. The State Department acknowledged receipt of the request and denied the Washington Post's request for expedited processing. After hearing nothing further from the agency, the Washington Post filed suit. Complaint issues: Expedited processing, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 2501 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20520 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Opinion/Order [19] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Washington Post failed to show that it was entitled to attorney's fees for litigation brought by the newspaper to force the Department of State to disclose diplomatic cables warning of safety issues at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where researchers studied novel coronaviruses. The Post filed a FOIA request for the cables and related records and asked for expedited processing. The agency denied its request for expedited processing and placed the request into the simple processing track "where it would be processed as quickly as possible." The Post filed suit challenging the denial of expedited processing and amending its complaint to include an allegation of failure to respond within the statutory time limit. The State Department answered the suit two weeks later. The State Department suggested to Boasberg that he set a deadline of six weeks for a final response, which he adopted. The State Department provided its final response in five weeks, redacting some information under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). The State Department also posted an earlier cable on its website, which it claimed was not responsive to the Post's request because it was outside the date range of the request. The Post then told Boasberg it would no longer challenge the adequacy of the search. However, the Post then filed a motion for attorney's fees, arguing that its suit caused the agency to disclose the records. Boasberg disagreed. He noted that "here, the analysis begins and ends with eligibility â€" that is, whether the Post has 'substantially prevailed' in this suit." The Post argued that it was eligible for an award because Boasberg's scheduling order constituted a judicial order, making it the prevailing party. Boasberg rejected the claim, noting that "however, the Court here never ordered the government to produce responsive records by a date certain. Rather, it merely ordered State to issue a final response. . .Plaintiff cites no authority involving a routine scheduling order such as the one at issue here, which 'simply forwarded the litigation process.'" The Post also argued that its litigation caused the agency to disclose the records. Again, Boasberg disagreed. He pointed out that "aside from the sequence of events, there is no reason to think that State would have failed to release the April 2018 cable had the Post not filed its lawsuit." He added that "it seems more likely, in fact, that 'the documents would have been processed in the same manner,' with the same result, regardless of whether litigation was filed." He observed that "the Post's argument still boils down to nothing more than timing: State has not begun its work prior to the suit, then the suit was filed, and then State began the process that led to the cable's release. Concluding merely from those events that the lawsuit caused the cable's disclosure is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, and in this context "causation requires more than correlation.'" Boasberg indicated that the Post was not arguing that its suit caused the agency to expedite the processing of its request. He pointed out that "the Circuit has not ruled on whether an agency's speedier release of records can qualify as a 'voluntary or unilateral change in position' sufficient to substantially prevail under the catalyst theory."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility - Causal effect | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|