Case Detail
| Case Title | GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2023cv03268 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2023-11-01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2024-11-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Rudolph Contreras | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Government Accountability & Oversight submitted a FOIA request to the SEC for records concerning email correspondence involving from six agency officials sent to two specific domain addresses over two specified periods of time. GAO also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. After hearing nothing further from the agency, GAO filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Opinion/Order [16] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that Government Accountability & Oversight failed to show that it was entitled to attorney's fees for FOIA litigation it conducted against the SEC for records concerning the impact of a California climate risk disclosure rule had on the SEC's cost assessment of its own rule. SEC did not receive the original email request because it went into spam as part of the SEC's FOIA email account. Because GAO had not heard from the agency, it filed suit soon after the statutory time limits were exhausted. Once the SEC discovered its error as a result of GAO's litigation, the agency began to process the request and released 363 pages with some portions withheld under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). After reviewing the two pages redacted under the deliberative process privilege the SEC disclosed those redacted portions but continued with its Exemption 6 withholdings. At the end of the litigation, the only issue remaining was whether GAO was eligible for attorney's fees. GAO argued that it was eligible for attorney's fees under the catalyst theory, claiming that the fact that it had filed suit caused the agency to disclose the records. The SEC argued that GAO was not eligible for attorney's fees because it could not show that its suit was the catalyst for disclosing the records because the agency had processed the request in the normal course of business. Contreras agreed with the SEC that the catalyst theory did not apply, noting that "the catalyst theory turns on whether a plaintiff's lawsuit 'substantially caused' the agency to release documents." He indicated that "the mere filing of the complaint and the subsequent release of the document is insufficient to establish causation.'" GAO argued that the SEC disclosed the records only because GAO had diligently pursued its FOIA litigation. But Contreras pointed out that 'there is no reason to think' that the SEC would not have released the documents absent GAO's suit." Contreras rejected GAO's claim that its litigation caused the agency to release the small redactions under Exemption 5. Instead, he found that the redactions would have been revised as part of the appellate review if GAO had followed that route rather than immediately filing suit.
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
