Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

43 Citing cases

  1. Dorsen v. U.S. Secs. & Exch. Comm'n

    15 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 39 times
    Finding plaintiff was eligible for attorneys' fees after agency initially withheld responsive documents and released the documents one day after complaint was filed

    Inquiry as to whether the claim is “not insubstantial” is “properly considered under the entitlement prong of the fee analysis, not the eligibility prong.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 233 (D.D.C.2012) (citing Brayton, 641 F.3d at 526 ). If the plaintiff has “substantially prevailed and thus may receive fees ... the court proceeds to the entitlement prong and considers a variety of factors to determine whether the plaintiff should receive fees.”

  2. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin.

    266 F. Supp. 3d 162 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting DEA's argument that they "would have released" records regardless of order because defendants did not meaningfully begin complying until after a complaint was filed

    Id. Essentially, a court is empowered to exercise its discretion in "making this equitable judgment," id., but should take into account a plaintiff's overall success on the merits when making its determination. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 239 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ). Accordingly, "where the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the district court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained, excluding nonproductive time or ... time expended on issues on which [the] plaintiff ultimately did not prevail[.

  3. Conn. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.

    3:20-cv-1775 (VAB) (D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023)

    Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 232 (D.D.C. 2012). “If . . . an unavoidable delay accompanied by due diligence in the administrative process was the actual reason for the agency's failure to respond to a request

  4. Envtl. Def. Fund v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency

    17-cv-02220 (APM) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    In that sense, counsel's time spent preparing for mediation contributed to its “overall success on the merits.” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 239 (D.D.C. 2012). That said, the time devoted to the mediation appears excessive.

  5. Envtl. Integrity Project v. Gen. Servs. Admin.

    18-cv-0042 (KBJ) (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2021)

    SeeJud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 238 (D.D.C. 2012). Under D.C. Circuit precedent, the “usual method of calculating reasonable attorney's fees is to multiply the hours reasonably expended in the litigation by a reasonable hourly fee, producing the ‘lodestar' amount.”

  6. Hardy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives

    293 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 5 times
    Awarding fees for review of documents necessary "to determine how to proceed in this litigation"

    C. Reasonable Fee Award Although the plaintiff is eligible for and entitled to some award of fees, that award must be reasonable. SeeJudicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 238 (D.D.C. 2012) ("The FOIA permits an award of ‘reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs’ to a plaintiff that demonstrates its eligibility for and entitlement to such an award." (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i) ) (emphasis in original)).

  7. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

    Case No. 15-cv-1955 (TSC) (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2016)

    Because this court never considered the merits of this case or entered an order directing DOJ to process or release documents, EPIC's position is that it has substantially prevailed under this second provision, involving a voluntary or unilateral change in position by DOJ. The D.C. Circuit refers to this as the "'catalyst theory' of fee eligibility, under which 'FOIA plaintiffs [are] eligible for a fee award if the lawsuit substantially caused the agency to release the requested records,' regardless of whether the plaintiff obtained any court-ordered relief." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, 878 F. Supp. 2d 225, 231 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Davis v. DOJ, 610 F.3d 750, 752 (D.C. Cir. 2010)). The plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that "the lawsuit was reasonably necessary and the litigation substantially caused the requested records to be released."

  8. Conservation Force v. Jewell

    160 F. Supp. 3d 194 (D.D.C. 2016)   Cited 44 times
    Holding denial of agency's motion for summary judgment did not constitute a judicial order on the requested relief and therefore did not suffice to entitle the requestor to attorney fees

    Thus, once a plaintiff successfully surmounts the eligibility hurdle, the fee inquiry becomes highly case specific. See, e.g. , Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ , 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 238–39 (D.D.C.2012) (examining whether the fees that were incurred were reasonable, even after the plaintiff had demonstrated eligibility and entitlement).III. DISCUSSION

  9. Inst. For Energy Research v. Dep't of the Treasury

    22-cv-03653 (DLF) (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2024)

    The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the reasonability of its requested fees. Judicial Watch v. DOJ, 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 238 (D.D.C. 2012).

  10. Pickering v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

    No. 19-CV-417-RJA-LGF (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2024)

    Such a release is pursuant to prong II for fee eligibility, the so-called “catalyst theory.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 231 (D.D.C. 2012) (explaining that eligibility for fees under the catalyst theory requires the “