Shaklee & Oliver, P.S. v. USCIS, No. 20-0806, 2021 WL 4148175 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2021) (Jones, J.)

Shaklee & Oliver, P.S. v. USCIS, No. 20-0806, 2021 WL 4148175 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2021) (Jones, J.)

Re:  Request for Alien Files ("A-Files") related to his clients

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees

• Attorney Fees:  "As an initial matter, the Court addresses USCIS's request to strike all references to settlement discussions in Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees."  "[T]he Ninth Circuit explained, 'other circuits have held that settlement negotiations may be considered by the district court as a factor in determining a fee award.'"  "The settlement communications here are not proffered by Plaintiff for the purpose of determining a reasonable fee amount."  "[T]he Court grants USCIS's request to strike references to the settlement discussions in Plaintiffs' attorney fees motion."
   
• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  "[T]he Court finds that Plaintiffs' lawsuit did not have a substantial causative effect on the release of the records."  "Because Plaintiffs have not shown that they 'substantially prevailed,' the Court concludes that they are not eligible for attorney fees."  First, 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.'"  Second, the court finds that "Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence of what actually triggered the release of records."  "The evidence provided by USCIS, on the other hand, provides compelling reasons for the months-long delay:  (1) USCIS's ["first-in/first-out"] process by which Plaintiffs' requests were placed in a queue to be processed after thousands and then tens of thousands of other FOIA requests; and (2) substantial challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic which affected operations and productivity, and led to the closure of the facility housing two of the three records requested."  "Indeed, once the [Federal Records Center] resumed operations, USCIS requested the records, processed them, and sent them to Plaintiffs two weeks later."  "There is no evidence that the release of records was triggered by anything other than the normal procedure for processing such requests pursuant to the ["first-in/first-out"] process and reopening of the FRC."  "As USCIS notes, it never refused to provide the documents and it had informed Plaintiffs of possible delays due to the large volume of FOIA requests processed on a ["first-in/first-out"] basis."  Third, "the Court finds that Plaintiffs' lawsuit did not have a substantial causative effect on the release of the records."  "Because Plaintiffs have not shown that they 'substantially prevailed,' the Court concludes that they are not eligible for attorney fees."