Case Detail
| Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2010cv00750 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2010-05-11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2011-11-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [11] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that CREW is entitled to attorney's fees for its suit against the Justice Department for records pertaining to the alleged destruction of former Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo. CREW made a request to DOJ in February 2010 for records concerning its record-keeping policies, particularly its retention of email records. CREW asked for expedited processing, which was granted. Less than a week later, CREW submitted another FOIA request for Yoo's emails from June 2001 �" May 2003. It did not ask for expedited processing of the second request. CREW and DOJ discussed the February request several times by phone and the agency disclosed two records. After hearing nothing further, CREW filed suit. The court issued a case management order in June 2010 and issued a subsequent scheduling order in August instructing DOJ to finish processing both requests. The agency complied with the scheduling order, the case was dismissed in June 2011 and CREW filed for attorney's fees, contending that the scheduling order changed the legal relationship between the parties. Boasberg agreed. He noted that "despite Defendant's attempt to characterize the order as mere 'housekeeping,' it does not simply 'require the parties to meet and confer and then submit a joint status or scheduling report.' It affirmatively requires the processing and production of documents by a date certain. And Defendant's suggestion that CREW did not obtain the relief it sought because it desired the 'immediate' release of documents and 'immediate' release was not ordered, is an attempt to split hairs even more finely. A party must 'substantially prevail,' not 'precisely prevail;' as a result, it need not obtain an order granting relief in language identical to that used in its complaint." Having found CREW was eligible for fees, Boasberg turned to an analysis of whether the organization was entitled to an award. Noting that CREW was a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting citizens' rights to be informed about government activities and the integrity of government officials, Boasberg observed that "in furtherance of this enterprise, CREW freely and publicly disseminates those records it acquires through FOIA requests. As an entity that 'gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [its] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience,' CREW is 'among those whom Congress intended to be favorably treated under FOIA's fee provision.'" But he explained that "CREW's status as a nonprofit, public interest organization does not entitle it to a government-signed blank check for its FOIA-related litigation always and everywhere. Indeed, the public benefit and the agency's reasonableness must also be considered." Boasberg agreed that Yoo's emails were a matter of public interest. The agency argued that CREW had admitted it found nothing substantive in the records concerning Yoo, suggesting that there was no public interest. But Boasberg pointed out that "CREW did not expect the emails to expose substantive information about Yoo's work at DOJ; instead, as the request itself makes clear, '[d]isclosure of the volume and subject of Mr. Yoo's existing email records. . .would inform the public about whether and to what extent the destruction of emails was limited to Mr. Yoo's role in drafting the terror memoranda and may have been the result of willful actions by Mr. Yoo or others.' The fact that the remaining emails had little to do with Yoo's substantive activities at OLC, therefore, is precisely the kind of information CREW hoped to glean from its requests. That only mundane or unrelated email survived, CREW maintains, suggests that the missing emails concerning the torture memoranda were destroyed willfully." Boasberg also found that the agency's delay in responding brought the reasonableness of its position into question. He observed that "although Defendant is correct that 'an agency's failure to meet deadlines. . .does not warrant an award of fees in and of itself,' considering this failure in conjunction with the other three factors, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award." Boasberg instructed the parties to settle on an award, but if they could not do so the court would make a determination.
Opinion/Order [15]Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Public benefit FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has awarded CREW $12,417 for prevailing in its suit against the Justice Department. Although CREW asked for $22,393, Boasberg found that some of its charges had not been adequately substantiated. Boasberg agreed with the agency that CREW had not provided adequate justification for the hours charged. He noted that "while CREW's counsel did keep contemporaneous records, their timekeeping practices fell significantly below what is expected of fee applicants in this Circuit. . .CREW offers no real excuse for its inadequate timekeeping habits. CREW was aware it would be seeking a fee award and its counsel are experienced litigators." But he then noted that "the Court, nevertheless, does not find a complete disallowance of fees to be warrantedâ€"the records here are not so deficient as to prevent opposing counsel or the Court from 'mak[ing] an informed determination as to the merits of the application.' CREW's fee award, however, will be reduced to account for any inaccuracies and overbilling that may have occurred as a result of its unacceptable timekeeping habits." He indicated that "Defendant's suggestion of a 37.5% reduction is reasonable. This is based on splitting the 75% difference between billing in quarter-hour versus full-hour increments. Plaintiff's fee award will be adjusted accordingly." Boasberg agreed that CREW should not be awarded $3,325 for reviewing the documents released by the agency. He pointed out that "plaintiff would have had to expend this time had DOJ timely produced the documents without litigation; the cost of reviewing documents produced in response to a FOIA request is simply the price of making such a request."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Calculation of award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
