People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. HHS, No. 10-1818, 2015 WL 5326103 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2015) (Jackson, J.)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. HHS, No. 10-1818, 2015 WL 5326103 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2015) (Jackson, J.)

Re: Request for all Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare files concerning Auburn University

Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs; awarding plaintiff $22,724.03 in attorney fees and costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  "The Court finds that PETA obtained relief through the D.C. Circuit's opinion because the Circuit Court ordered NIH to search its records for a category of documents that fell outside the FOIA exemption."  "[T]he Court notes that the D.C. Circuit certainly did not award plaintiff all of the relief it sought."  "But it did grant plaintiff a narrow victory."  "While the Court agrees that the sum total of plaintiff's victory in this case was small, the test is not merely the size of the relief obtained but whether plaintiff obtained some judicial relief on the merits that resulted in a 'change in the legal relationship' between the parties."  "The Court finds that the D.C. Circuit's order changed the legal relationship between [plaintiff] and [defendant], and it resulted in further action on the agency's part."  The court explains that "if the agency had responsive documents that fell within the broader request, it would have been required to release them to [plaintiff]."  "The fact that it did not have responsive documents does not negate the fact that the D.C. Circuit's ruling 'changed the legal relationship' between [plaintiff] and [defendant]."
   
• Attorney Fees, Entitlement:  "[T]he Court finds that plaintiff is eligible for a modest award of attorneys' fees."  "The Court finds that the public benefit factor is neutral, the commercial benefit and personal interest factors weigh in favor of plaintiff, and the reasonableness factor weighs in favor of defendant."  Regarding the first factor, the court finds that this factor is neutral.  The court finds that "[n]o documents were produced and the litigation did not in fact generate any information about how NIH responds to animal welfare complaints or the way it processes FOIA requests."  However, the court also finds that there was a "'potential public value of the information sought.'"  The court finds that the documents could have "shed light on [certain agency] practices" or "on the way that [defendant] responds to FOIA requests generally."  Regarding the second and third factors, "[t]he [c]ourt finds that these factors favor plaintiff."  The court explains that "[p]laintiff is a non-profit public interest organization . . . and it was seeking documents from defendant 'for public informational purposes' only."  Regarding the fourth factor, "the Court does not find that [defendant] was obdurate or recalcitrant, and that it had a reasonable basis in law for its Glomar response."  The court explains that "[t]he D.C. Circuit found the . . . [initial] reading of the request to be 'understandable,' and it held that the Glomar response 'would be fully warranted' if [plaintiff's] request was interpreted [more narrowly]."
   
• Attorney Fees, Calculations:  Since "[plaintiff] prevailed only on a narrow portion of the relief it requested," "the Court finds that a reasonable fee award is ten percent of [plaintiff's] claimed amount, or $22,724.03."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] prevailed only to the extent the request could be broadly read to seek other documents."  "And even with respect to that category of documents, it turned out there were no responsive documents."