Inst. for Energy Rsch. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 22-03653, 2024 WL 5118225 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2024) (Friedrich, J.)

Inst. for Energy Rsch. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 22-03653, 2024 WL 5118225 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2024) (Friedrich, J.)

Re:  Request for correspondence between IRS employees and certain lobbyists and congressional staff members responsible for implementing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees; denying defendant’s motion to strike

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court holds that “[b]ecause the record demonstrates that IRS initiated its search and review process before any action was filed, [plaintiff] cannot prove that its litigation catalyzed the agency’s response.”  “The administrative and litigation timeline demonstrates that IRS initiated its search for records responsive to Requests 1, 2, and 3 in response to [plaintiff’s] second batch of FOIA requests, not because of any litigation.” The court relates that, after plaintiff submitted its requests, defendant “took prompt action.”  “The agency’s document custodians continued their search throughout December 2022 and January 2023; and throughout 2023, IRS continued locating, receiving, and processing potentially responsive records.”  “By mid-November 2023, IRS had completed its review of thousands of pages potentially relevant records and determined that only a few documents were responsive.”  “IRS also identified and processed potentially responsive records held by other agencies.”  “In mid-January 2024, IRS completed its production process, and the parties do not dispute that IRS conducted a diligent search process and produced all responsive, non-exempt records.”  “IRS was not served with the complaint regarding Request 2, and did not receive notice of that lawsuit, until December 8th . . . – after the agency had already begun its search for records related to Request 2.”  “Likewise, [plaintiff] filed its next set of lawsuits – regarding Requests 1 and 3 – in mid-January 2023, weeks after IRS had already begun searching for, receiving, and processing, records potentially responsive to those requests.”  “Because IRS’s search process ‘began before the initiation of [any] lawsuit,’ [plaintiff] cannot assert that filing suit catalyzed the agency’s response.”  “The record shows that the catalyst for IRS releasing the requested records was not [plaintiff’s] litigation, but rather [plaintiff’s] resubmission of its FOIA requests after rectifying the overbroad scope of its initial submissions.”  “After IRS denied the initial batch of requests, the parties resolved their dispute over exempt information through the administrative process and [plaintiff] resubmitted its requests with clarifying language.”  “IRS promptly began processing [plaintiff’s] amended requests and continued to search for and review potentially responsive records before [plaintiff] filed its lawsuits.”  “‘These actions reflect a good faith effort to respond to [plaintiff’s] request and a diligent ongoing process that began before the initiation of the lawsuit.’”
  
  “Even if the record timeline were less clear, the Court would still find that [plaintiff] has failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove that litigation catalyzed the agency response.”  “The relevant inquiry is ‘whether hard evidence – beyond temporal proximity – supports the inference that the plaintiff’s lawsuit caused the document release or other requested relief.’”  “[Plaintiff’s] argument relies solely on temporal proximity . . . which is squarely foreclosed by precedent . . . .”  “The Court finds no other basis to overcome the presumptive ‘inference’ that IRS responded in good faith to the plaintiff’s FOIA requests.”