Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. USCIS, No. 23-1561, 2024 WL 3964761 (D. Md. Aug. 28, 2024) (Bennett, S.J.)

Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. USCIS, No. 23-1561, 2024 WL 3964761 (D. Md. Aug. 28, 2024) (Bennett, S.J.)

Re:  Requests concerning certain training and evaluation material

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs; awarding plaintiff $21,090 in attorney fees and $402 in costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court notes that “USCIS does not dispute [plaintiff’s] eligibility for attorney’s fees.”
   
• Attorney Fees, Entitlement:  “While perhaps a closer question than presented by many disputes over attorney’s fees, the Court, in its discretion, finds that the factors are equally balanced.” “Accordingly, the Court finds that [plaintiff] is both eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees under FOIA’s fee-shifting provision.”  The court finds that “the first factor – the public benefit of the documents concerning the asylum process – weighs in favor of entitling Plaintiff to an award of attorney’s fees.”  “Indeed, USCIS concedes as much.”  Regarding the second and third factors, “[t]he Court shares USCIS’s concerns that Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have a private interest in obtaining attorney’s fees from FOIA litigation pursued on behalf of an LLC registered to an individual who shares counsel’s last name and to an address that appears to be affiliated with Plaintiff’s counsel.”  “Troublingly, Plaintiff puts forth little effort to quell these concerns.”  “Still, and while acknowledging that [plaintiff] does not appear to be very effective at sharing the information it receives through its numerous FOIA requests, there is at least some public interest in [plaintiff’s] pursuit and release of the records.”  “Weighing the limited benefit of [plaintiff’s] minimal dissemination of the information it receives with the public against the apparent private interest, the Court finds that the second and third factors weigh against a fee award.”  Regarding the fourth factor, the court relates that “USCIS concedes that this factor is satisfied.”  “The] Court agrees.”  “While courts have explained that this factor is not automatically satisfied by the fact that an agency failed to produce documents within the statutory timeframe, a lengthy, unexplained delay has been held to satisfy it.”  “[Plaintiff] requested the subject papers from USCIS in January 2021.”  “USCIS failed to respond within the Freedom of Information Act’s time limits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), and approximately 29 months after [plaintiff[] made the subject FOIA requests, [plaintiff] initiated the instant litigation.”
   
• Attorney Fees, Calculations:  First, the court relates that “counsel for [plaintiff] . . . complains that the [local] guidelines were last updated in 2014 and contends ‘$620 per hour is reasonable for counsel for plaintiff in this case.’”  The court finds that “[plaintiff] has produced absolutely no evidence other than [plaintiff’s counsel’s] Declaration to support the reasonableness of its requested rate.”  “Accordingly, the Court will award hourly rates in the amount set forth at the high end of Appendix B of the Local Rules –  $475 an hour.”  “The Court next considers the reasonableness of hours billed.”  “The Court first notes that [plaintiff’s] billing records are difficult to decipher.”  “Indeed, [plaintiff’s] billing records reveal inefficiencies and a lack of billing judgment.” “At bottom, the Court finds that counsel for [plaintiff] spent too much time on the case, and certainly spent too much time on the instant motion.”  “To account for overbilling, the Court will reduce Plaintiff’s claimed hours by 25%.”  “[Plaintiff’s] billing records are also insufficiently descriptive as to the tasks performed.”  “To account for these insufficient descriptions, the Court will further reduce [plaintiff’s] claimed hours by an additional 25%.”  “Thus, the Court will award fees of 50% of the claimed hours – that is, 44.4 hours.”  “At bottom, [plaintiff] is entitled to $21,090 in fees.”  Additionally, the court finds that, “[w]hile USCIS opposes [plaintiff’s] request for costs of $402, noting ‘Plaintiff’s Complaint is simply a boilerplate template of the various Complaints [plaintiff] has filed against USCIS in Maryland and in the District of Columbia,’ . . . the Court will grant [plaintiff’s] request for costs of $402.”