Inclusive Communities Project v. HUD, No. 14-3333, 2017 WL 386649 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2017) (Boyle, J.)

Inclusive Communities Project v. HUD, No. 14-3333, 2017 WL 386649 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2017) (Boyle, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning use of HUD Housing Choice Vouchers in Dallas area

Disposition: Granting plaintiff's motion for attorney fees; awarding plaintiff $90,280

• Attorney Fees: The court holds that "[plaintiff's] Motion for Attorneys' Fees is . . . granted[.]" "[T]he Court agrees with [plaintiff] that it is both eligible and entitled to receive attorneys' fees." The court notes that "[HUD's] Response appears to concede both [plaintiff's] 'eligibility' and 'entitlement' to at least some amount of attorneys' fees." The court does quickly relate that, "[a]s to eligibility, [plaintiff] avers that it is the prevailing party based on the Court's Order requiring HUD to provide the records[.]" "[Plaintiff] also contends that all four entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding attorneys' fees in this case." The court notes that "[plaintiff] argues that the benefit to the public supports the award of attorneys' fees because release of the withheld information sheds light on HUD's performance of its statutory duties[,]" "[plaintiff] points out that it will reap no commercial benefit from the information, as it is a public interest organization serving low-income families[,]" "[plaintiff] notes that the information will be used to benefit families using Housing Choice Vouchers and the public which provides funding for the Housing Choice Voucher program[,]" and "[plaintiff] argues that HUD had no reasonable basis for withholding the requested information." Turning to the calculations, "the Court finds that the disputed 18.3 hours for time spent reviewing the records and the Vaughn index is recoverable." The court explains that, "[w]hile the Fifth Circuit has not addressed the issue, other courts have held that time billed to review records to determine whether an agency's response was fully responsive to a plaintiff's FOIA request is recoverable under the statute." The court finds that "'[t]his is not a case where a plaintiff filed a complaint for documents under FOIA, the agency released the documents, and the plaintiff then requested attorney's fees for its time reviewing the released documents.'" "Rather, [plaintiff] requested documents, received some but not all of the requested documents – which it could have discovered only after reviewing the documents – and then successfully litigated to obtain the withheld documents."