Outside Legal Couns. PLC v. TSA, No. 23-10553, 2025 WL 1088807 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2025) (Parker, J.)

Outside Legal Couns. PLC v. TSA, No. 23-10553, 2025 WL 1088807 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2025) (Parker, J.)

Re: Request for six categories of records concerning firearms seized at United States airports

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for costs

• Attorney Fees:  The court relates that “[a]lthough recognizing that an award of attorney’s fees [to a pro se attorney plaintiff] is precluded by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals[] . . . , [plaintiff] maintains that [the Sixth Circuit decision] should be reversed.”  “[Plaintiff] therefore also asks this Court to find its challenge to [the Sixth Circuit’s decision] preserved for future action by the en banc appellate court.” “TSA opposes the motion, arguing that [plaintiff] cannot establish its eligibility for an award of costs or fees and that the equity factors do not favor an award.”  The court finds that, “[a]ccording to TSA, the processing of [plaintiff’s] request was complicated by the fact that responsive records contained [Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”)], requiring a review by its SSI Program Office for a line-by-line review and redaction of SSI contained therein.”  “Processing was further complicated because responsive records contained Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) equities, requiring TSA to send records to the FBI for consultation.”  “[Plaintiff] offers nothing in response to this explanation other than a strongly worded assertion that TSA failed to comply with the statute’s timeline.”  “This does nothing to show that this lawsuit was ‘reasonably necessary to obtain [the] requested information,’ and that it ‘had a causative effect upon the release of that information[.]’”  “Nor does [plaintiff] make any attempt to address the equitable factors the Court must consider before assessing attorney fees or other litigation costs against the United States.”  “For these reasons, [plaintiff] fails to demonstrate that it is a prevailing party or that a balance of equitable considerations warrant an award under § 552(a)(4)(E)(i).”  “Therefore, even if [the Sixth Circuit’s decision] was incorrectly decided, [plaintiff] would not be entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees.”