Case Detail
Case Title | ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv00042 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-01-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2018-07-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Environmental Integrity Project submitted a FOIA request to the General Services Administration for records concerning credit card charges submitted for travel by EPA and Department of Interior from April 2017 through September 2017. The agency denied the request, telling EIP that it was not allowed to disclose credit card charge information pertaining to other agencies. EIP filed an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, EIP filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Vaughn index, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Opinion/Order [32] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has ruled that the Environmental Integrity Project is entitled to attorney's fees because of its FOIA litigation against U.S. General Services Administration for records concerning whether the EPA and the Department of Interior had provided GSA with statutorily required travel reports. When GSA received the request, it told EIP to request the two reports directly from EPA and Interior rather than from GSA. EIP told GSA that it specifically requested the reports from GSA to confirm the reports had been properly submitted. Although GSA had indicated that it would not refer the request to EPA or Interior for response, it did so after being persuaded by EIP's administrative appeal, arguing the agency had a duty to refer the requests itself. EPA and Interior provided the reports and once GSA confirmed that the reports were indeed in its system, EIP agreed to dismiss its suit except for its request for attorney's fees. The attorney's fees issue was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who concluded that EIP was not entitled to fees because its suit did not cause GSA to process the request. However, Brown Jackson disagreed. She noted that "in its initial response to EIP's FOIA request, GSA disclaimed any responsibility for providing the requested records. . .Nothing about GSA's response indicated any intention of referring EIP's FOIA request to the agencies on its own â€" to the contrary, GSA unequivocally announced that its advice to EIP regarding how EIP should proceed 'completed [the agency's] action on this FOIA request.'" She observed that "what the record does show is that GSA did not agree to refer EIP's requests to the agencies until approximately three months after EIP filed an administrative appeal that argued that GSA had such a duty, and the direct referral was made just three days before GSA's answer to EIP's complaint in this action was due." Brown Jackson also found GSA had re-referred EIP's requests after being told by EIP that its initial referrals did not include much of EIP's contact information. She pointed out that "because GSA's re-referral emails appear to have been tailored to include most of the information that EIP had faulted GSA for omitting in the initial referrals, this Court has little doubt that the arguments EIP made in the context of this lawsuit substantially caused GSA to re-refer EIP's request." Brown Jackson found that EIP's request served the public interest and that EIP had neither a commercial nor personal motivation in making the request. She then concluded that GSA's failure to automatically refer the request was unreasonable. She noted that "when an agency makes a referral to another agency it is the FOIA request or the responsive document that is being referred â€" not the requestor itself. This Court is not aware of any authority suggesting that an agency's mere provision of the originating agency's contact information to the requester constitutes a proper referral under the FOIA, and GSA has not cited any case to that effect." Brown Jackson reduced EIP's fee request by removing hours EIP had claimed for reviewing its billing entries. As a result, she awarded EIP $36,578 in fees and $423 in costs.
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility - Causal effect | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|