Aguiar v. EOUSA, No. 18-02823, 2020 WL 4284945 (D.D.C. July 27, 2020) (Nichols, J.)

Aguiar v. EOUSA, No. 18-02823, 2020 WL 4284945 (D.D.C. July 27, 2020) (Nichols, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning investigation of plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for costs

• Litigation Considerations:  The court relates that "[i]n his Motion, [plaintiff] states that he 'has decided not to oppose the [government's] Summary Judgment motion.'"  The court holds that "[t]he government's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore granted."
   
• Attorney Fees:  The court holds that "[plaintiff] has not met his burden here."  "To start, as [plaintiff] implicitly concedes, there is no 'judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree,' . . . that compelled the government to produce documents or information it was withholding, so he cannot succeed under FOIA's first prong."  "As for whether [plaintiff] can satisfy the so-called catalyst theory, the record reflects that before this suit was filed, the government had been in contact with [plaintiff] about his requests, worked with him to narrow his requests, and produced some documents."  "While [plaintiff] is correct that the government did produce more documents and update the numbers of documents it declared it was withholding after he filed the lawsuit, he has not made clear how the lawsuit 'substantially caused' these acts."  "Most of [plaintiff's] assertions appear to point to the timing of events –namely, that he filed his suit and then the government released records."  "But pointing to that timeline, without more, is insufficient to establish the necessary causality to recover fees."