Case Detail
| Case Title | Menasha Corporation et al v. United States Department of Justice | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Eastern District of Wisconsin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Green Bay | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2011cv00682 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2011-07-15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2013-04-02 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Chief Judge William C Griesbach | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Menasha Corporation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Neenah-Menasha Sewerage Commission | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Department of Justice | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | Seventh Circuit 12-1720 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Complaint attachment 10 Opinion/Order [23] Opinion/Order [32] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Wisconsin has ruled that while the Menasha Corporation is eligible for attorney's fees because it substantially prevailed in its FOIA suit against the Justice Department, it is not entitled to them. The court had earlier ruled that the Justice Department waived its attorney-client privilege claims when the Environmental Enforcement Section and the Environmental Defense Section shared information with federal agencies involved in a Superfund clean-up suit because they had adverse interests in the litigation. Menasha then filed for attorney's fees. The court first rejected Menasha's claim that disclosure was in the public interest, noting that "the likelihood that these particular internal DOJ communications and memoranda will be disseminated beyond the litigation remains entirely speculative." The court found that Menasha's interest in the documents was not exactly commercial, but that the company clearly had a personal interest in the information. "The fact that Plaintiffs were not requesting information pertaining to their own liability does not mean they did not have private interests in the information. . .Plaintiffs' interest in the information was still for its own private use in the litigation." As to the reasonableness of the government's position, the court pointed out that "while this Court did not agree with the government's interpretation of precedent, and indeed specifically ruled that DOJ was not justified in withholding the requested documents, given the lack of case law on point, I cannot conclude the government's withholding was entirely unreasonable or without basis." However, the court disagreed with the government's claim that business requesters were generally not eligible for attorney's fees. The court observed that "nothing in FOIA's language or structure indicates that a corporation or municipality should per se be barred from using this provision."
Opinion/Order [41]Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Wisconsin has ruled that the government waived any protection under Exemption 5 (privileges) for various documents when they were shared by Justice Department attorneys representing agencies with different interests. The case involved a request by Menasha Corporation dealing with liability for a Superfund clean-up. While the EPA was involved in prosecuting the case, the Army Corps of Engineers was another potentially liable party and its interest in the litigation was to minimize its liability. Admitting the documents were privileged on their face, Menasha argued that the DOJ attorneys representing both the EPA and the Corps of Engineers had shared the documents among themselves. The court noted that "the EPA may seek joint and several liability against any [responsible party] and should seek to impose the maximum liability appropriate against any [responsible party]. USACE's self-interest, however, is to minimize its liability. The interests of the EPA and UACE are thus adverse. Attorneys who represent parties with adverse interests waive attorney-client and work product privileges as to documents they willingly share with their adversaries." The agencies argued they represented one client�"the United States. But the court observed that "the interests here are clearly adverse; there is no difficulty in discerning the specifically competing interests. The Environmental Enforcement Section is responsible for coordinating enforcement efforts whereas the Environmental Defense Section is responsible for coordinating defense litigation strategies. Because the United States has competing interests in this case, it (appropriately) has separate counsel from EES and EDS independently representing the interests of their respective client agencies in the same manner as other adverse parties. Communications between those adverse parties therefore waive the privilege, as would communications between Plaintiff Menasha and any other [responsible party]."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Waiver of privilege | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
