Huddleston v. FBI, No. 20-447, 2024 WL 3846984 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2024) (Mazzant, J.)

Huddleston v. FBI, No. 20-447, 2024 WL 3846984 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2024) (Mazzant, J.)

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

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

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  “[T]he Court denies the pending motions without prejudice because [plaintiff] has not substantially prevailed.”  First, the court notes that “[plaintiff] does not address whether he has substantially prevailed by obtaining relief by judicial order, an enforceable, or a consent decree.”  “The Court’s most recent orders (the 2023 Order and the 2024 Order) have not required the Government to produce responsive documents or records or other requested relief to [plaintiff].”  “Rather, the Court has ordered the Government to either produce additional Vaughn indexes or file an additional motion for summary judgment.”  “Notably, [plaintiff] has not ‘obtained relief’ through the 2024 Order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) because neither an additional Vaughn Index nor a motion for summary judgment (by the Government) consists of responsive documents or records or other requested relief.”  “Therefore, the [plaintiff] has not substantially prevailed pursuant to the first prong of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(ii).”
  
  Second, the court finds that “[plaintiff] has not substantially prevailed under the second prong of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(E)(ii) because he cannot demonstrate that the present FOIA action had a substantive causative effect on the delivery of the information.”  “Although the Government’s discovery of over 20,000 potentially responsive documents to [plaintiff’s] FOIA requests after the New York Case is far from perfect, the Government’s discovery of these documents after the New York Case does not show that [plaintiff’s] filing of the present action caused the FBI to acknowledge, let alone release, responsive records.”  “Importantly, [plaintiff] has not shown that his filing of this case before the Government even acknowledged his FOIA requests, as opposed to his submission of three FOIA requests, had a substantive causative effect on the delivery of the information.”
  
  “The Court does not explicitly hold in this Memorandum Opinion and Order that it will not grant interim attorneys’ fees in this case.”  “The Court will allow [plaintiff] to refile the pending motions for interim fees before the entirety of this litigation has concluded.”