Munene v. Talebian, No. 22-0243, 2022 WL 3975141 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2022) (Vaughan, Mag. J.)
Date
Munene v. Talebian, No. 22-0243, 2022 WL 3975141 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2022) (Vaughan, Mag. J.)
Re: Requests for records concerning plaintiffs
Disposition: Denying plaintiffs’ motion for fees and costs
- Attorney Fees, Eligibility: “[T]he Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit had a substantial causative effect on EOIR’s release of the requested documents, meaning Plaintiffs did not ‘substantially prevail’ and are not eligible for attorneys’ fees.” The court finds that “Plaintiffs have not produced . . . convincing evidence indicating they substantially prevailed.” “First, . . . Plaintiffs’ case, which sought the immediate processing and release of FOIA records, was resolved without court intervention, at most two months after Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.” “Second, nothing indicates EOIR ever refused to provide the requested records.” “Indeed, EOIR has submitted evidence indicating it began processing Plaintiffs’ FOIA records requests promptly after receiving them.” “Plaintiffs present no evidence indicating the lawsuit caused EOIR to send the records when it otherwise would not have.” The court relates that “Plaintiffs’ only argument is a temporal one – they had not received the requested records before filing their lawsuit, and EOIR only released the records after suit was filed.” “But [the court finds that] the ‘mere fact that information sought was not released until after the lawsuit was instituted is insufficient to establish that a complainant has “substantially prevailed.”’”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Attorney Fees
Updated October 13, 2022