Castillo v. CBP, No. 23-3110, 2024 WL 2024 WL 1182865 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024) (Seeborg, C.J.)

Castillo v. CBP, No. 23-3110, 2024 WL 2024 WL 1182865 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024) (Seeborg, C.J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court holds that “[plaintiff] has not established he is eligible to recover fees here because nothing suggests he obtained relief through any ‘change in position’ of CBP.”  “Rather, the record shows that the CBP put both his requests in the queue for records search, to be processed on a first-in, first-out basis.”  “CBP never took the position that it did not have to search for records, or that it was entitled to withhold any records (apart from the ‘minimal’ redactions that [plaintiff] has not challenged).”  “CBP did, of course, take the position that [plaintiff’s] requests were not entitled to ‘expedited’ processing, but then, after the litigation was filed, handled the matter in a manner that may have produced somewhat faster results than if the requests had simply remained in the queue for first-in, first-out processing.”  “Even assuming CBP’s post-complaint processing procedure could be characterized as a ‘change in position’ from its prior determination that expedited processing was not warranted, however, [plaintiff] cannot show that his ‘claim’ for expedited processing was substantial.”  “While it is true that agencies have a 20-day deadline to respond to FOIA requests absent extenuating circumstances, where there is no suggestion of avoidable foot-dragging by the agency, and it appears normal processing will result in production within the time period identified by the requester as critical, any claim by the requester of an entitlement to what in effect would be ‘line jumping’ is not ‘substantial’ for purposes of establishing eligibility for fees.”  “Accordingly, under the circumstances here, [plaintiff] is not eligible for a fee award.”

• Attorney Fees, Entitlement:  The court holds that, “even if [plaintiff] should at least be deemed eligible to recover fees, the discretionary factors do not support an award.”  “[Plaintiff’s] interest in obtaining CBP records relevant to a tort claim he is considering filing does not implicate any significant public interests, and the public cannot be said to have derived any benefit from this case.”  “While holding agencies responsible for responding to FOIA requests on a timely basis is a public concern, this case did not significantly advance that interest.”  “The fact that [plaintiff] was not seeking the records for a commercial benefit weighs somewhat in his favor, but is not dispositive.”  “[Plaintiff’s] interest in the records, while legitimate, was unlikely critical, as he almost certainly could have filed his tort claim and received the information through that process and/or any subsequent litigation.”  “Finally, the government never withheld the records.”  “While it may have failed to comply strictly with the statutory timing requirements, under the circumstances here that is insufficient to support a fee award.”