Skip to main content

Walker v. Donovan, No. 19-3784, 2024 WL 4891916 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2024) (Chutkan, J.)

Date

Walker v. Donovan, No. 19-3784, 2024 WL 4891916 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2024) (Chutkan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning internal investigation, or “command action,” against plaintiff

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees

  • Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court relates that, “[u]nder FOIA, a party has ‘substantially prevailed’ by obtaining relief through either ‘a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree’ or ‘a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency, if the complainant’s claim is not insubstantial.’” “[Plaintiff’s] claim for eligibility rests on the second prong, known as the ‘catalyst theory.’”  “He argues that his lawsuit caused the Air Force to release documents responsive to his FOIA request and that ‘clearly represents a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency.’”  “But [the court finds that] the mere filing of a complaint and the subsequent release of documents, without more, is insufficient to establish causation.”  “While it is true (and the Air Force concedes) that documents were released after [plaintiff] filed his complaint, the record makes clear that the Air Force began processing [plaintiff’s] FOIA request well before he initiated his lawsuit.”  “The court has already found that the Air Force appropriately applied Exemption 7(A) and then appropriately dropped the Exemption 7(A) assertion once the investigation concluded.”  “Given that the relevant documents were already being collected and redacted before this case was filed, the court is not convinced that the Air Force released documents because of this litigation.”  “[Plaintiff] also fails to show that the Air Force’s eventual disclosure of the relevant documents was because of this litigation and not due to delayed administrative processing.”  “The Air Force has explained both in connection with the instant motion and throughout the litigation that the delays in its pre- and post-litigation searches were due to its other duties, including processing [plaintiff’s] FOIA appeal, ‘staffing issues and the press of other business in the Air Force Operations Agency FOIA office,’ . . . and significant telework constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic.”  “[Plaintiff] has not convincingly shown that the Air Force did not intend to comply with his request absent the lawsuit or that [plaintiff’s] lawsuit caused the release of the documents obtained.”  “Based on the record in this case, [plaintiff] has not shown that the litigation caused a ‘change in position’ by the Air Force, . . . such that he ‘substantially prevailed[]’ . . . .”  “He is therefore ineligible for attorney’s fees.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Attorney Fees
Updated January 10, 2025