Case Detail
| Case Title | American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al v. Drug Enforcement Administration | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Northern District of California | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | San Francisco | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2011cv01997 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2011-04-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2012-04-26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Hon. Richard Seeborg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | San Francisco Bay Guardian | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Drug Enforcement Administration | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [29] Opinion/Order [39] Opinion/Order [54] Opinion/Order [56] Opinion/Order [64] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has awarded the ACLU of Northern California $178,000 in attorney's fees for its FOIA litigation against the DEA for records relating to state efforts to import, transfer, or purchase drugs commonly used in lethal injections. As a result of the litigation, at least one scheduled execution was temporarily halted when the DEA discovered Arizona had imported sodium thiopental in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Sodium Thiopental is used by 30 states as part of their lethal injection protocol. In May 2010 thiopental was no longer available domestically and states began to look for foreign sources for the drug, which prompted the ACLU of Northern California and the San Francisco Bay Guardian to request records concerning such attempts to import thiopental. While the agency granted the request, it produced no documents because of its backlog. However, when the plaintiffs learned that two states had set execution dates in May and June 2011, they filed suit to force the agency to disclose the documents before the executions occurred. The DEA produced some documents in May 2011, but not any Form 236 import declarations. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on May 23, 2011 and the agency released four Form 236s the same day. The next day, the U.S. Attorney's Office notified the Arizona Attorney General that Arizona's supply of thiopental was imported in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and the Arizona Supreme Court stayed the execution. The parties stipulated a dismissal of the FOIA suit in April 2012 but were unable to reach an agreement on attorney's fees. The plaintiffs argued they had substantially prevailed because their litigation caused the agency to disclose the records when it did. In response, the agency contended the litigation was not necessary and "the timing of production was the result of unavoidable delay due to their backlog of FOIA requests." But Judge Richard Seeborg pointed out that "while the DEA may have eventually produced the documents requested by plaintiff under FOIA, the immediacy of the scheduled executions made the timing of production critical. Plaintiffs filed their request for expedited production on January 4, 2011. On March 9, 2011, plaintiffs were told they would be 'notified of [the DEA's] initial determination by correspondence at a later date.' This letter gave no guidance as to the progress of the production request, or when plaintiffs might expect to receive an answer. Plaintiffs heard nothing further from the DEA before filing suit in this Court on April 22, 2011." The agency argued that it started searching for records on February 8, 2011 before the complaint was filed. Seeborg noted that "defendant apparently failed, however, to notify plaintiffs that it had begun such a search. Plaintiffs were thus justified in believing that the filing of this lawsuit was necessary in light of the impending dates of execution." He added that "furthermore, the filing of this matter prompted a supplemental search for records to take place, resulting in the discovery of documents held in the DEA Administrator's office, additional field division offices, and the unearthing of additional documents in offices already searched. Absent is any indication that this supplemental search would have taken place without the filing of plaintiffs' action in federal court. Indeed, this Court found that the DEA's initial search for records was inadequate, and ordered defendant to expand its search to meet the 'reasonableness' standard. Thus, plaintiffs' suit was at least a catalyst, if not the primary cause, for the disclosure of important public records." The DEA claimed the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion was unnecessary because the agency had already agreed to submit documents and had expended significant effort in complying with the request before suit was filed. But Seeborg indicated that "defendant fails to recognize that the fees inquiry looks at whether the 'filing of the action' was reasonably necessary to the production of documents, not whether each individual litigation step taken was efficacious. . .[T]he filing of this matter in federal court was the spur that incentivized defendant's thorough scouring of its records." The agency contended litigation could not be the catalyst when the agency was acting with due diligence in dealing with its backlog. But Seeborg pointed out that "defendant has provided insufficient evidence to support its claim of due diligence. Despite granting plaintiffs' request for expedited processing, defendant did not provide plaintiff with any meaningful updates on its intended production until after plaintiffs filed suit." He noted that "it was not until after suit was filed that defendant began to search its field divisions and send consultation requests to other agencies. These requests specifically referred to the pending preliminary injunction in requesting prompt responses. The intention to respond to a FOIA request after months of silence cannot evidence due diligence." Having found the plaintiffs were eligible for a fee award, Seeborg proceeded to find that they were entitled to one as well. He noted that "the documents produced reveal that several states procured foreign drugs in violation of federal drug laws for the purpose of executing prisoners, and that the DEA had ignored these violations. This revelation resulted in widespread media attention regarding the use of potentially illegal drugs for prisoner executions. . .Ultimately, the media's attention led the DEA to step in with information leading to the postponement of the scheduled Arizona execution. Thus, plaintiffs' actions not only widely informed the public, but resulted in the agency reacting to, and complying with, its disclosure obligations." He also found that the ACLU and the Bay Guardian did not have any personal or commercial interest in the records. Although Seeborg acknowledged that the agency's position was not unreasonable, he observed that "this factor is insufficient to outweigh the [other] factors that point in favor of plaintiffs." The agency argued that plaintiffs could not be compensated for review time. But Seeborg noted that "it is illogical to suggest that a lawyer's time spent reviewing documents cannot be compensated. Without review of the documents produced, plaintiffs would have been unable to ascertain whether defendant had complied fully with its FOIA request and thus unable to determine what issues needed to be litigated. No reasonable client would refuse to compensate a lawyer for this work."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility - Causal effect, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Public benefit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
