Simmons v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 19-2058, 2025 WL 870322 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2025) (Chutkan, J.)

Simmons v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 19-2058, 2025 WL 870322 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2025) (Chutkan, J.)

Re: Requests for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  “Based on the record, [the court finds that] Plaintiff has not shown that the litigation caused a change in State’s position, . . . such that she ‘substantially prevailed[]’ . . . .” “She is therefore ineligible for attorneys’ fees.”  The court relates that “Plaintiff claims she substantially prevailed under the second standard, known as the ‘catalyst theory.’”  “Here, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that ‘the litigation caused [State] to release the documents obtained.’”  “Instead, the record ‘makes clear that [State] had begun processing plaintiff’s request[s] well before this lawsuit was initiated’ and ‘had even made partial releases . . . before the complaint was filed.’”  “State promptly acknowledged Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, immediately started processing records, and made several pre-litigation productions.” “Plaintiff fails to rebut evidence that delayed ‘disclosure result[ed] not from the suit but from delayed administrative processing.’”  “State promptly notified the court when operational constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic required it to ‘cease processing documents.’”  “It also attributed delays to an extensive FOIA request backlog and inter-agency searches.”  “At the end of Fiscal Year 2019, State’s FOIA backlog totaled 11,086 requests and by late 2023, it had increased to more than 21,500 requests.” “The ‘backlogs and difficulties in processing break any purported casual nexus between the[ ] initiation of [the] lawsuit and the subsequent productions.’”