Sheppard v. DOJ, No. 17-1037, 2021 WL 4304218 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 21, 2021) (Laughrey, J.)
Sheppard v. DOJ, No. 17-1037, 2021 WL 4304218 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 21, 2021) (Laughrey, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning investigation into allegations of government impropriety in prosecution of five defendants for 1988 arson in Kansas City, Missouri
Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part motion for attorney fees and costs; denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions
- Attorney Fees, Eligibility: The court holds that "[s]ince multiple orders from this Court have resulted in a 'judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship between the parties,' [plaintiff] has substantially succeeded, and he is eligible to recover attorney's fees." "[The] Court – several times – ordered the DOJ to conduct additional searches to locate and produce records responsive to [plaintiff's] FOIA requests." "These Court-ordered searches resulted in the DOJ locating thousands of pages of additional records responsive to [plaintiff's] FOIA request." "On multiple occasions, the Court also ordered the DOJ to produce, or amend, declarations explaining the DOJ's search efforts, and Vaughn indices to justify the DOJ's decisions to withhold documents." "These orders led the DOJ to remove certain redactions and produce additional records." "In many of its orders, the Court also set deadlines by which the DOJ had to produce documents." "Any of these orders would make [plaintiff] eligible for attorney's fees and litigation costs under FOIA." "In any event, the Court also granted most of [plaintiff's] requested substantive relief when it partially granted summary judgment."
- Attorney Fees, Entitlement: The court holds that "[a]s all the relevant factors weigh in [plaintiff's] favor; he is entitled to attorney's fees." Regarding the first factor, the Court has already analyzed the public's interests in this case – public scrutiny of agency action and rooting out government misconduct – and found them to be substantial." "On the other hand, [regarding the second factor, the court finds that plaintiff] certainly has a personal interest in the records he seeks." "[Plaintiff] was one of five individuals convicted after the arson, and three of his four co-defendants remain in prison." "The requests are surely, at least to some extent, meant to advance personal interests." "However, public and private interests are not necessarily mutually exclusive." "[H]ere, [plaintiff's] personal interests in the records happen to align with the public's: identifying and rectifying alleged government misconduct." "The fact that [plaintiff] might – if the records contain exculpatory information – use what he learned to act in his own interests does not automatically disqualify him under this factor." "Because [plaintiff] does not have a commercial interest motivating his efforts to seek the records, and because his personal interests do not eclipse the benefit gained by the public, the [second and third] factors weigh in [plaintiff's] favor." Regarding the fourth factor, the court holds that "[t]he DOJ certainly took defensible positions throughout this litigation, even when the Court ultimately ruled against it." "Advancing a losing argument is not alone enough to justify fees under this factor." "But the DOJ's flawed search efforts and dilatory conduct went beyond vigorously litigated factual or legal disputes; here, they had no reasonable basis."
- Attorney Fees, Calculations: "The Court does not presently have enough information to do this calculation." "Therefore, [plaintiff] shall, within fourteen days, submit a specific request for reasonable costs and fees along with materials substantiating that request." "The DOJ will then have fourteen days to respond."
- Litigation Considerations, Relief: The court relates that "[plaintiff] asks the Court to use both statutory and its inherent authority to sanction the DOJ and award him attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, arguing that the DOJ's litigation conduct required 'numerous and repetitive orders instructing Defendant to conduct searches, produce documents, reprocess Plaintiff's FOIA request, provide status updates, and inform the Court [whether] Defendant ha[d] complied with all of its orders.'" "However, the Court has already determined [plaintiff] is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation costs under FOIA." "It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether the DOJ's conduct rises to the level of justifying sanctions." "For that reason, to the extent the Fee Petition requests sanctions, it will be denied as moot."