Case Detail
| Case Title | MATTACHINE SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2016cv00773 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-04-27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2019-12-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | MATTACHINE SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., a research and educational society working to uncover documentation of political persecution of the LGBT community, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning E.O. 10450, an executive order issued during the Eisenhower administration allowing agencies to persecute individuals because of their sexual orientation based on national security claims, from 1950-1990. After more than six years without a response, the FBI disclosed 253 pages, withholding records under Exemption 3 (other statutes) and Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources). The National Security Division disclosed 45 pages. The FBI then disclosed another 254 pages, claiming the same exemptions as well as Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 5 (privileges). The Mattachine Society appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the denials. The Mattachine Society then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Adequacy - Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 Complaint attachment 11 Complaint attachment 12 Complaint attachment 13 Complaint attachment 14 Complaint attachment 15 Complaint attachment 16 Complaint attachment 17 Complaint attachment 18 Complaint attachment 19 Complaint attachment 20 Complaint attachment 21 Complaint attachment 22 Complaint attachment 23 Complaint attachment 24 Complaint attachment 25 Complaint attachment 26 Complaint attachment 27 Complaint attachment 28 Opinion/Order [51] FOIA Project Annotation: Two recent decisions by long-time district court judges have expressed frustration with the FBI's apparent inability and unwillingness to accommodate complex historical requests that require more than a first-in, first out approach, instead taking positions in court that require requesters to either accept decades long delays in processing voluminous records or limiting search parameters in ways that are likely to produce far fewer responsive records. Both Judge Gladys Kessler and Judge Royce Lamberth took the agency to task for failing to explain why delay and search problems could not be resolved in ways that better served the goals of public disclosure of government information. Lamberth's ruling involved a request by the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., for records concerning the implementation of Executive Order 10450, which was signed in 1953 by President Dwight Eisenhower, allowing then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to purge gay and lesbian employees previously identified under the agency's "Sex Deviate Program." In the following decades, the EO was used by the FBI and the U.S. Civil Service Commission to fire thousands of federal employees. Because the program was originally overseen by Warren Burger when he served as head of the Justice Department's Civil Division, the MSDC also requested records concerning Burger's participation in the EO's implementation. The FBI disclosed 552 pages and withheld an additional 583 documents. Believing there must be more records on the program that was in place for 40 years, MSDC filed suit, arguing the agency's search was not adequate. Lamberth agreed. He initially noted that the FBI had limited its search to "Executive Order 10450," "Sex Deviate" and "Sex Deviate Program." He explained that although those search terms might be adequate to uncover records leading up to the EO, the EO itself shifted to using the term "sexual perversion," suggesting that the earlier descriptors would not be likely to uncover subsequently created records. MSDC had suggested broader search terms such as "gay," "lesbian" and "homosexual," but the FBI had rejected them as being too broad. Lamberth, however, noted that "while broad, those terms. . .are directly related to MSDC's specific request; even if there is a large volume of responsive documents, MSDC's request would compel their production." In its defense, the FBI explained that the term "pervert" yielded 5,500 hits. But Lamberth responded that "the FBI has not reviewed any portion of this search or others like it, offers no projections of what the results might be, and does not estimate the number of additional hours, resources, or funds [that] make these searches rise to the level of being an undue burden." He added that the Government provides no context in which to assess the volume of responses as being disproportionately burdensome as compared to similar requests. The FBI is asking the Court to declare that these searches would be unduly burdensome merely because the FBI suspects that they might be so, and that is not sufficient." Lamberth was disturbed by the FBI's response to MSDC's contention that it initially failed to search for records on Burger. Now the agency claimed it had searched all permutations of Burger's name and found no responsive records. Lamberth indicated that "respectfully, this strains credulity. It is suspicious at best, and malicious at worst, for the FBI to assert in one paragraph that the review of 5,500 documents would be too burdensome, and in the next claim to have conducted a review of every document related to any permutation of Warren E. Burger �" Chief Justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986, D.C. Circuit Judge from 1956 to 1969, and Chief of the Civil Division of the Justice Department from 1953 to 1956. This absurd dichotomy stretches credulity further, as the FBI claims that the review of that search did not yield a single responsive document. The Court finds it nearly impossible to believe that a search for every permutation of the name of the man charged with carrying out EO 10540, a robust federal mandate that built upon an established FBI initiative, yielded zero responsive documents." In a rather unusual step, Lamberth found that the FBI had properly claimed Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) to protect the names of individuals identified in the records, but because there was a strong public interest in disclosure of the records he required the agency to replace the names with unique alphanumeric markers. This result, he observed, 'will sufficiently protect the privacy interests of all parties involved, while also allowing the public to better study the effects of EO 10450 on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender federal employees who were surveilled, harassed, and/or terminated under this program and others like it."
Opinion/Order [77]Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Search - Reasonableness of search FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has awarded the Mattachine Society, a public interest group advocating for gay rights, $178,448.91 in attorney's fees and costs for its litigation against the FBI for records pertaining to the creation and implementation of Executive Order 10450 during the Eisenhower administration, allowing agencies to investigate and terminate federal employees on suspicion of homosexuality. In response to the Mattachine Society's request, the FBI located 861 pages and withheld 846 pages. The Mattachine Society filed suit, arguing that the three search terms used by the agency were inadequate. Lamberth agreed, ordering subsequent searches. He also found that some of the agency's redactions were improper. The Mattachine Society subsequently filed a motion for attorney's fees. The FBI argued that the Mattachine Society was not entitled to attorney's fees because Lamberth had upheld some of its redactions. But Lamberth pointed out that "the Court, however, did not need to find that every single redaction was improper in order for Mattachine to be entitled to fees, as FOIA's requirement is not that a complainant prevailed on 100% of the issues presented â€" FOIA requires only that a complainant 'substantially prevailed.' That is precisely what happened here." Lamberth then assessed the four factors used in determining a plaintiff's entitlement to fees â€" the public interest in disclosure, the commercial interest of the requester, the personal interest of the requester, and whether the agency had a reasonable basis in law. He observed that the FBI acknowledged the public interest in the records was significant and pointed out that "even though only a modest amount of information was disclosed, this factor still turns in favor of Mattachine â€" it is the public value of the request that courts evaluate for significance, not the actual results of the search." He indicated that the FBI did not contest the commercial or personal interest of the Mattachine Society in requesting the records, but explained that "in this case, Mattachine received no commercial gain from its FOIA request. On the contrary, its interest in the information is very much aligned with the public's interest in the information." The FBI argued that its initial limited search did not demonstrate bad faith. Lamberth noted that "this may be true, but those decisions also do not demonstrate reasonableness. Essentially, although the FBI prevailed on some issues raised during summary judgment, many of its actions during the initial search were unreasonable." The Mattachine Society was represented pro bono by the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery. Lamberth explained that "it is worth mentioning that even though McDermott performed its work for Mattachine pro bono, that is not a bar to recovering attorneys' fees, as courts frequently award costs and fees in pro bono cases." An issue that is frequently litigated in attorney's fees cases is which matrix to use to calculate fees. The government has always supported using the USAO Matrix, which has lower hourly rates, while plaintiffs usually advocate for the Laffey Matrix, which contains higher hourly rates. Lamberth chose the Laffey Matrix, specifically because a recent D.C. Circuit decision, DL v. District of Columbia, 924 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2019), had rejected the USAO Matrix as not being representative of the relevant class of attorneys. Lamberth indicated that the Mattachine Society had explained that under the somewhat more generous Lodestar Method for calculating fees, its fee request would result in a $193,772 award. But, Lamberth observed that "the highest amount Mattachine requests is $178,134 under the Laffey Matrix. The Court will not award Mattachine more than it asks for and finds that the Laffey Matrix appropriately values McDermott's services."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Public benefit, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Calculation of award | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
