Case Detail
Case Title | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2015cv00667 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2015-05-01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | Open | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | EPIC submitted a FOIA request to the Drug Enforcement Administration for records concerning Privacy Impact Assessments conducted by DEA that are not publicly available. EPIC requested inclusion in the media fee category and asked for a fee waiver as well. DEA acknowledged receipt of EPIC's request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, EPIC filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Public Interest Fee Waiver, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the DEA has not yet shown that it conducted an adequate search for Privacy Impact Assessments required under the E-Government Act because it has failed to explain why it did not expand its search to locate four PIAs that were unaccounted for after EPIC had found evidence of such PIAs in final determination letters from the Justice Department's Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties. EPIC sent a request to the DEA for all PIAs for agency information collection systems that were not available on its website and all initial privacy assessments conducted by the DEA since 2007. OPCL assists Justice components like the DEA to assess the need for PIAs. If OPCL determines a PIA is required, the agency must submit the assessment to OPCL for final approval and post it publicly as long as the system continues in use. The agency searched its Chief Information Officer Support Unit, which acts as a liaison between OPCL and DEA's Senior Component Office for Privacy. SCOP is responsible for approving PIAs before CIOSU submits them to OPCL for final authorization. CIOSU conducted the search for records responsive to EPIC's request. It found only one non-public PIA, which was released to EPIC. The agency told EPIC that initial privacy assessments were essentially working drafts and that the final approval determination letters from OPCL represented the final product. EPIC agreed to accept the 13 OPCL determination letters, which were reviewed and released by OPCL. The OPCL determination letters revealed that OPCL had requested four PIAs from the DEA that were not available online and had not been uncovered in the DEA's initial search. As a result, the DEA re-ran its initial search and still came up with nothing. EPIC made three challenges to the adequacy of the agency's search. Cooper rejected EPIC's claim that DEA had improperly narrowed its search to CIOSU. Cooper accepted the agency's explanation, noting that "the DEA, not its FOIA requestors, is charged with determining the most effective way to search its records." He also dismissed EPIC's claim that inserting the word "final" into the search had improperly limited the search, pointing out that "the CIOSU conducted specific searches based on program names provided by EPIC without adding 'final' as a search term. These searches yielded no additional results." But he agreed with EPIC that once the four unaccounted for PIAs came to light as a result of the OPCL determination letters the agency was required to pursue such a lead. He observed that "if the SCOP had reviewed and approved a final PIA without returning it to the CIOSU, a final version of the PIA might remain with the SCOP. The CIOSU did not explain why searching the SCOP, once EPIC presented evidence of potential [additional] PIAs, was not likely to uncover responsive records. The OPCL letters provide a 'lead' that the CIOSU failed to reasonably follow."
Opinion/Order [36]Issues: Adequacy - Search FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that EPIC is entitled to attorney's fees for its FOIA litigation against the DEA, but has substantially reduced its fee request after finding that EPIC had only prevailed on one issue, that an updated version of the USAO matrix providing lower hourly rates should be used to calculate fees, and that EPIC's request for fees for litigating its fee motion should be reduced accordingly. EPIC had asked DEA for copies of all its Privacy Impact Statements for new databases containing personally-identifying information as required by the E-Government Act. After the agency failed to respond within three months, EPIC filed suit. In July 2015, Cooper ordered the agency to conduct a search. DEA found only one PIA for a system that was no longer in use. However, it also agreed to disclose 13 determination letters prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, four of which recommended DEA prepare a PIA for an information system. Based on this knowledge, EPIC asked Cooper to order DEA to conduct another search. Cooper told the agency that it could either conduct another search or provide a supplemental affidavit satisfactorily explaining why it could not find the four PIAs referred to in the determination letters. The DEA chose to provide a supplemental affidavit and Cooper granted the agency summary judgment. The parties also failed to reach an agreement on attorney's fees and EPIC filed a motion for an award of $33,468. Cooper found that his order requiring the agency to conduct its original search meant EPIC had substantially prevailed on that issue, but that EPIC fell short on its renewed motion to require a further search. Here, Cooper pointed out that "the summary judgment order neither required the DEA to continue searching for records nor provided EPIC the relief it sought, i.e., the production of additional responsive records. The order there did not make EPIC a substantially prevailing party." Cooper found EPIC's request had served the public interest by attempting to determine whether the agency was abiding by its legal obligations to post relevant PIAs. He rejected the DEA's claim that EPIC was commercial because it relied on donations. He observed that EPIC's "chief function remains the public dissemination of information regarding government surveillance." While a handful of recent attorney's fees cases involving FOIA litigation by public interest groups have sided with the plaintiffs' claim that the LSI-Laffey matrix should be used instead of the USAO matrix in determining hourly rates, here, Cooper was persuaded by the government's evidence indicating that the USAO matrix had been updated more recently and was thus a more reliable indicator. Cooper explained that "after examining the case law and the supporting evidence offered by both parties, the Court is persuaded that the updated USAO matrix, which covers billing rates from 2015 to 2017, is the more suitable choice here." Cooper agreed with the government that since EPIC had only prevailed on his July 2015 order, any hours claimed after October 2015 should not be considered for compensation. The DEA challenged a number of entries, but Cooper refused to engage in a nitpicking analysis of claims. However, he agreed with the agency that EPIC had not shown why three attorneys were required to attend certain meetings or make certain decisions, reducing its fee claims accordingly. Because he concluded that EPIC had prevailed only on its first issue, he reduced EPIC's claim for fees for litigating the attorney's fees award by 67 percent. He noted that his rough calculations yielded an award of $20,391, but ordered the parties to calculate a final fee agreement.
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Prevailing party, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Calculation of award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|