The Mattachine Soc'y of Washington, DC v. DOJ, No. 16-773, 2019 WL 6345747 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2019) (Lamberth, J.)

The Mattachine Soc'y of Washington, DC v. DOJ, No. 16-773, 2019 WL 6345747 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2019) (Lamberth, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning Executive Order 10450, signed by President Eisenhower, which gave federal agencies authority to investigate and terminate federal employees on suspicion of homosexuality

Disposition:  Granting plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs; awarding plaintiff $178,134 in attorney fees and $314.91 in costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court holds that "[plaintiff] has shown that it is eligible for fees and costs because it 'substantially prevailed' at the summary judgment stage."  'The Court ordered the FBI to revise its redactions and create an index for cross-referencing persons listed in responsive documents."  "It is true that after conducting an in camera review of the redacted documents, some of the FBI's redactions were found to be proper."  "The Court, however, did not need to find that every single redaction was improper in order for [plaintiff] to be entitled to fees, as FOIA's requirement is not that a complainant prevailed on 100% of the issues presented – FOIA requires only that a complainant 'substantially prevailed.'"  "That is precisely what happened here."  "The Court also ordered the FBI to conduct a more adequate search by adding new search terms."
   
• Attorney Fees, Entitlement:  "After weighing the four entitlement factors, it is clear that [plaintiff] is entitled to costs and fees."  "Although no one factor is dispositive, the Court finds that all four factors favor [plaintiff]."  Regarding the first factor, "[t]he FBI acknowledges that documents related to EO 10450 concern a matter of national importance."  "Our country's history of discrimination against LGBTQ individuals makes the disclosure of this information important."  "Even though only a modest amount of information was disclosed, this factor still turns in favor of [plaintiff] – it is the public value of the request that courts evaluate for significance, not the actual results of the search."  Regarding the second and third factors, the court finds that "[plaintiff] receives no commercial gain from its FOIA request."  "On the contrary, its interest in the information is very much aligned with the public's interest in the information."  Regarding the fourth factor, the court finds that while "[i]t is true that many of the FBI's redactions were reasonable, and the FBI still had some arguably 'reasonable basis in law' for redactions that turned out to be unwarranted[,]" "[t]he FBI’s insistence upon using only three search terms . . . was highly unreasonable and extremely suspicious."  "Therefore, even though the fourth factor is a slightly closer call than the first, second, and third factors, the Court finds that the fourth factor weighs in favor of [plaintiff's] entitlement to costs and fees."
   
• Attorney Fees, Calculations:  The court orders "that defendant United States Department of Justice shall pay plaintiff . . . $178,134 in attorneys' fees and $314.91 in costs for a total of $178,448.91."  The court finds that "[t]he time logs that [plaintiff's attorneys] submitted are sufficiently detailed."  "The Court commends [plaintiff] for voluntarily removing hours worked by 'non-core' associates and partners as well as by all summer associates."  "[Plaintiff] has also elected not to seek the $6,387.50 for all work completed following the Court's July 2017 Order."  The court finds that "Plaintiff's efforts to be reasonable in its request have not gone unnoticed."  "Additionally, it is worth mentioning that even though [plaintiff's attorneys] performed its work for [plaintiff] pro bono, that is not a bar to recovering attorneys' fees, as courts frequently award costs and fees in pro bono cases."
  
  Also, "the Court has decided that the Laffey Matrix is applicable here."  "This choice is largely based upon a D.C. Circuit decision from May of 2019 which rejected the USAO Matrix for its failure to 'survey[ ] the relevant population' and 'canvass[ ] the relevant type of lawyer' before imposing a specific hourly rate."
  
  Finally, the court relates that "[plaintiff] also seeks administrative costs in the amount of $314.91."  "Defendant agrees that these costs are reasonable and does not object to paying them, so the Court will award an additional $314.91 in costs."