Student Borrower Prot. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 23-1780, 2025 WL 1373472 (D.D.C. May 9, 2025) (Sooknanan, J.)

Student Borrower Prot. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 23-1780, 2025 WL 1373472 (D.D.C. May 9, 2025) (Sooknanan, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning policy of writing off defaulted federal student loans of incarcerated borrowers

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility: The court relates that “[i]n the absence of Court-ordered disclosure, [plaintiff] relies only on the catalyst theory to establish its eligibility for attorneys’ fees and costs.”  “[Plaintiff] argues that the Department of Education did not release documents until ‘well after’ the lawsuit was filed.”  “And it contends that the lawsuit ‘accelerated’ the agency’s release of documents.”  “[Plaintiff] principally relies on timing to establish that this lawsuit was the catalyst to the agency producing documents.”  “The Court is unconvinced.”  “There is virtually no support for that claim in the record.”  “And the Department of Education has provided evidence that it was processing [plaintiff’s] FOIA request for more than a year before this lawsuit.”  “Even [plaintiff] describes the agency’s declaration as a ‘dizzying back-and-forth of internal bureaucratic deliberations among multiple departments.’” “It simply is not true that the agency was ignoring [plaintiff’s] FOIA request before this lawsuit.”  “[Defendant’s] declaration sets out important context about delays at the agency that [plaintiff] fails to acknowledge.” “[Plaintiff] also argues that the timeline of production is a ‘salient factor’ in the attorney fees analysis.” “True, but it would be ‘improper’ for this Court to simply ‘infer causation from the timing of disclosure.’”
  
  “[Plaintiff] also argues that the Department of Education’s ‘“sudden acceleration” to release a substantial quantity of responsive, non-exempt documents after the lawsuit’ demonstrated that the lawsuit led to the agency’s compliance.”  “To prove that a ‘sudden acceleration’ occurred, a FOIA plaintiff has the burden of showing both that (1) ‘the agency decided against disclosure,’ and (2) ‘that the agency did in fact accelerate its response to the FOIA request[.]’”  “[Plaintiff] falls well short of this showing.”  “In fact, [plaintiff] devotes only a single sentence in its motion arguing that a sudden acceleration occurred in this case.”