Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 20-3706, 2024 WL 1344450 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2024) (Contreras, J.)

Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 20-3706, 2024 WL 1344450 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2024) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning Biscayne National Park

Disposition:  Granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on FOIA count “to the extent that it has shown eligibility for attorneys’ fees”; denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on FOIA count

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility & Entitlement:  “The Court finds that [plaintiff] has shown that it is eligible for attorneys’ fees related to its FOIA request.”  “However, [plaintiff] has not argued that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees, so the Court cannot award fees at the present juncture.”  “[Plaintiff] seeks fees solely under the catalyst theory; it did not receive relief through a judicial order.”  “Here, [plaintiff] has established that it likely would not have received the documents at the time that it did if not for the litigation.”  “As an initial matter, is indisputable that to some extent the delay stemmed from the heavy workload of [defendant’s] FOIA officer . . . .”  The court notes that plaintiff made the FOIA request “during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and amid a surge of FOIA requests to NPS related to the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd.”  “In addition to these unusual circumstances, at this time [defendant’s FOIA officer] was the only individual servicing both NPS’s main FOIA office and its Washington [office].”  “All that being so, the record still shows that [plaintiff’s] litigation moved NPS to prioritize and fulfill [plaintiff’s] request.”  “[Defendant’s] declaration makes plain that the litigation influenced her processing of [plaintiff’s] request.”  “So while [defendant’s declarant] says that ‘this lawsuit was not the catalyst to Plaintiff’s receipt of records,’ the rest of her declaration indicates otherwise.”  “While NPS may well have eventually produced documents without litigation pressure, the evidence signals that the lawsuit directly spurred an NPS commitment to review a certain number of pages per month, as well as an initial release of records shortly thereafter.”  “Thus, [plaintiff] has shown that it is eligible for FOIA attorneys’ fees and costs.” 
  
  “However, while [plaintiff] may be eligible for FOIA fees, it has made no argument that it is entitled to those fees under the second prong of the test.”  “[Plaintiff] recognizes that it cannot receive attorneys’ fees on the present motion, but responds that entitlement is a ‘secondary issue in the analytical framework governing FOIA fees, because the court can decide this issue, along with the issue of reasonableness of fees, after it determines that [plaintiff] has substantially prevailed.’”  “[Plaintiff] does not provide caselaw that specifically supports the position that parties tend to bring motions for FOIA fees in this piecemeal fashion:  the only case it cites merely reiterates that the attorney-fee inquiry has two prongs.”  “Nevertheless, a ‘party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense – or the part of each claim or defense – on which summary judgment is sought.’”  “[B]ecause the parties have sufficiently briefed the first prong of the attorneys’ fees inquiry and the Court has reached a conclusion, there would be no efficiency in forcing the parties to relitigate that issue later on.”  “Thus, the Court will grant [plaintiff’s] motion for summary judgment on [the FOIA count] to the extent that it has shown eligibility for attorneys’ fees, and will deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”