WP Co. LLC v. DHS, No. 20-1487, 2023 WL 1778196 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2023) (McFadden, J.)

WP Co. LLC v. DHS, No. 20-1487, 2023 WL 1778196 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2023) (McFadden, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning expenses of Department of State and Secret Service employees at Trump properties

Disposition:  Granting plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs; awarding plaintiff $55,000 in attorney fees and $741.55 in costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court notes that “[f]our times, the Court ordered State to produce documents by a specific date.”  Therefore, the court finds that “[plaintiff] ‘substantially prevailed’ by ‘obtain[ing] relief through . . . a judicial order.’”  “And it is thus eligible for fees.”
   
• Attorney Fees, Entitlement:  “[T]he Court finds that [plaintiff] is entitled to fees.”  Regarding the public benefit factor, the court finds that “[t]his factor cuts in [plaintiff’s] favor because the public had an interest in the information sought.”  “The FOIA requests related to government spending.”   “Pushing back, the agencies note that they had already gotten many similar FOIA requests.”  “Thus, they argue, [plaintiff’s] ‘lawsuit did not reveal the same magnitude of new information.’”  “Fair enough.”  “But that only makes this factor weigh less heavily in [plaintiff’s] favor; it does not tip the balance toward the agencies.”  Regarding the commercial benefit and the nature of plaintiff’s interest, the court finds that “[t]hese FOIA requests fit squarely with [plaintiff’s] public reporting about government spending during the Trump administration.”  “Thus, they were for a news purpose and these two factors favor [plaintiff] as well.”  “In response, the agencies say that ‘it is possible that the information will become the subject of published books of commercial value.’”  “True enough.”  “But the mere chance that the documents could be used for a book does not make these requests private.”  “Even an ‘intention to publish a book [would] not necessarily mean that the . . . [plaintiff’s] interest is purely commercial.’”  Finally, regarding the reasonableness of the withholding, the court finds that “this factor is close.”  “On one hand, the agencies offer no legal basis for failing to timely respond to [plaintiff’s] requests.”  “But on the other, the Court recognizes that the global pandemic made a fast FOIA response unrealistic.”  “Indeed, the agencies responded laudably during trying times.”  “So this factor, at most, slightly favors the agencies.”  “And because that is not close to enough to overcome the weight of the first three, the Court finds that [plaintiff] is entitled to fees.”
   
• Attorney Fees, Calculations:  “The Court finds that [plaintiff’s] fees are unreasonable and will instead award $55,000.”  “But the Court finds that [plaintiff’s] request for costs is reasonable, so it will award those in full.”  The court relates that “[t]here is no real dispute here about [plaintiff’s] hourly fees.”  “That leaves the reasonableness of the hours billed.”  “[T]he Court agrees that [plaintiff’s] fee is too steep for this ‘relatively straightforward FOIA case.’”  “Indeed, [plaintiff] challenged no withholdings and this case never went to summary judgment.”  “There were no real substantive disagreements.”  “And beyond the pleadings, the lawyers did little briefing.”  “The Court also agrees that little work was necessary for the lawyers on the DHS side of the case.”  “The Court disagrees, however, that [plaintiff’s] time entries fail ‘to establish a clear nexus to this case.’”  “None of [plaintiff’s] redacted time entries lack enough context.”  “And [plaintiff] need not expose privileged information to get a fee award that it is eligible for by statute.”  “The Court agrees that [plaintiff’s] fee award should be reduced for ‘time expended on issues on which [it] did not ultimately prevail.’”  “[Plaintiff’s] Motion to Amend is another matter.”  “For one, [plaintiff] won that motion.”  “Plus, the Court is unpersuaded by the agencies’ claim that awarding fees ‘would encourage other Plaintiffs to multiply FOIA litigation needlessly.’”  “When granting the motion to amend, the Court rejected the agencies’ similar claim that amendment was ‘prejudicial and inefficient.’”  “And the Court disagrees that fees are inappropriate ‘when the amendment did not lead to any claim on which Plaintiff substantially prevailed.’”  “True, the Court should consider whether amendment was necessary and productive.”  “But the agencies point to no authority requiring the Court to repeat its eligibility analysis on the Amended Complaint.”  “Still, the agencies are right to highlight that the lawyers charged $1,459 for fixing their own mistake in an exhibit; that is unreasonable.”