Stevens v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, No. 18-5391, 2024 WL 1014076 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2024) (Rowland, J.)

Stevens v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, No. 18-5391, 2024 WL 1014076 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2024) (Rowland, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning “‘policies, protocols, and practices for assessing the age of those in the custody of HHS or ICE’”

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  “Because [plaintiff] has not met the threshold burden that she ‘substantially prevailed’, the Court does not need to address the entitlement prong.”  “[Plaintiff] contends that voluntary production of responsive records over the course of litigation, without motion practice, is sufficient for her to be eligible under the judicial order theory where the court supervised the search, review, and production of responsive documents.”  “However, [plaintiff] cannot recover under this theory.”  “The Court ordered Defendants to produce all outstanding documents by January 25, 2019.”  “But at that time, [plaintiff] was pro se, and it is well established that pro se litigants cannot recover attorney’s fees.”  “Documents that were produced after [plaintiff’s] attorney filed her appearance were not produced pursuant to court order.”  “Attorney’s fees are therefore unavailable to [plaintiff] under the judicial order theory.”  “[Plaintiff] next argues that she can recover attorney’s fees under the catalyst theory.”  The court finds that “ten out of twelve agencies produced all of their records before [plaintiff’s] attorney made her appearance in May 2019.”  “For the remaining two agencies, [plaintiff] has failed to prove she substantially prevailed against them, as she has offered no evidence that her attorney’s appearance prompted the production, and that the additional production was not simply a good faith effort to comply with FOIA.”  “In sum, [plaintiff] has failed to prove the causal link required under the catalyst theory.”