Huddleston v. FBI, No. 20-447, 2023 WL 2387208 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2023) (Mazzant, J.)

Huddleston v. FBI, No. 20-447, 2023 WL 2387208 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2023) (Mazzant, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning deceased 27-year-old Democratic National Committee employee

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for interim payment of costs and attorney fees and plaintiff’s supplemental motion for interim payment of costs and attorney fees

• Attorney Fees:  “[T]he Court is not explicitly holding in this Order that it will not grant interim attorneys’ fees in this case.”  “In fact, the Court will allow [plaintiff] to re-file the pending motion for interim fees before the entirety of the litigation has concluded.”  “However, because of the parties’ pending motions for clarification on [an earlier court order regarding the adequacy of the search], the Court finds that it cannot conduct a proper analysis on whether [plaintiff] is entitled to interim attorneys’ fees until those issues are resolved.”  “Thus, the pending motions will be denied without prejudice.”
  
  The court relates that “[f]or [plaintiff] to prevail here, the Court views this analysis as requiring two parts that it will need to answer in the affirmative.”  “First, the Court will have to look at the statute and decide whether [plaintiff] has satisfied the fee eligibility prong, asking the question of whether the current litigation supports a finding that he has ‘substantially prevailed.’”  “During this analysis, the Court will have to decide if it will even allow interim fees based upon the specific language used in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).”  “The Court would then move to the second question of fee entitlement, asking whether [plaintiff[ should receive fees.”  “During this analysis, the Court will decide if it will adopt the test used by the district courts in California and D.C., and if so, whether [plaintiff] has sufficiently satisfied the relevant factors.”