Case Detail
| Case Title | Lawrence v. United States Small Business Administration | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Eastern District of Michigan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Detroit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 2:2020cv11637 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2020-06-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2021-03-19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Frank J. Lawrence, Jr. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Frank Lawrence submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Small Business Administration for records concerning whether three local companies requested and received aid under the paycheck protection program. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told Lawrence that it was taking a 10-day extension. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Lawrence filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Small Business Administration | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [27] FOIA Project Annotation: Even though it found that the Small Business Administration should not be sanctioned for its failure to respond to Frank Lawrence's FOIA request for records about his employer's alleged misuse of Paycheck Protection Program funds within the statutory time limit, a federal court in Michigan has ruled that Lawrence is entitled to attorney's fees for his litigation against the agency. Lawrence requested records concerning his employer's application to use PPP funds. The agency referred Lawrence to statistical information on its website but otherwise did not respond to his request. Lawrence then filed suit. Lawrence argued that under CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013), in which the D.C. Circuit held that if an agency failed to make a determination as to how to respond to a FOIA request within the statutory time limits provided in FOIA, the plaintiff had an absolute right to go to court, was dispositive of the case. However, the court decided CREW was distinguishable. Judge Mark Goldsmith explained that "even if, before SBA filed its motion to dismiss, Lawrence's complaint provided the agency with notice of his interpretation of CREW, the existence of a single case of recent vintage in a single circuit does not necessarily signal that another position is unequivocally groundless." Goldsmith indicated that "SBA's June 8, 2020 letter, which Lawrence received before bringing this action, did not postpone a decision for a later date, and did not state that it was not subject to appeal. Accordingly, it did not place Lawrence in the same type of 'Catch-22' identified by the court in CREW. Instead, the letter expressly told Lawrence that he could appeal." He noted that "given these distinctions â€" together with the principle that individuals must generally exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of a FOIA request â€" it was not objectively unreasonable under the circumstances for SBA to determine that its June 8, 2020 letter was sufficient to constitute an appealable decision." He added that "because SBA's position was not objectively unreasonable, sanctions are not warranted under Rule 11." However, after finding that the agency was not subject to sanctions, Goldsmith concluded that Lawrence had substantially prevailed and was entitled to attorney's fees. The agency argued that Lawrence's litigation did not cause the agency to change its position, but that a case filed by a media coalition â€" WP Company v. Small Business Administration, 502 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) â€" actually caused the agency to change its position. The court disagreed, noting that "simply because news organizations substantially prevailed in WP Co. does not preclude Lawrence from substantially prevailing here." He pointed out that "while the SBA contends that because of the WP Co. order, Lawrence would have obtained his requested information if he had 'done nothing,' the record indicates that is not the case." Having found Lawrence's fee request reasonable, Goldsmith awarded him the entire $16,167 he requested
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
