Wilson v. FBI, No. 23-137, 2024 WL 314665 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) (per curiam)

Wilson v. FBI, No. 23-137, 2024 WL 314665 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning requester

Disposition:  Affirming district court’s denial of requester’s motion for attorney fees

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit notes that “[t]he parties do not dispute that [the requester] is statutorily eligible for a fee award under FOIA’s fee-shifting provision.”
   
• Attorney Fees, Entitlement:  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in holding that [the relevant] factors weighed against an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.”  “At the outset, [the court] recognize[s] that the D.C. Circuit is ‘something of a specialist in adjudicating FOIA cases, given the nature of much of its caseload.’”  “There is little precedent in this Circuit applying FOIA’s fee-shifting provision.”  “Accordingly, [the court] look[s] approvingly to the decisions of the D.C. Circuit for guidance in this area.”  The court then finds that “[t]he District Court correctly concluded that [the public interest] factor does not support an award of fees because the documents [the requester] obtained had little public value and the records he sought were of personal, rather than public, interest.”  “The District Court also correctly concluded that . . . the nature of [the requester’s] interest in the records, weighs against an award of fees.”  “The record supports the District Court’s conclusion that [the requester] sought the documents for purely personal reasons, particularly, his desire to collect information about why he was allegedly contacted by FBI agents.”  “The District Court also correctly concluded that [“[t]he fourth factor[, which] ‘considers whether the agency’s opposition to disclosure had a reasonable basis in law . . .’,”] weighs against a fee award.”  “[The requester] contends that the District Court’s order requiring the FBI to search [one] system establishes that the FBI’s initial decision not to conduct such a search lacked a reasonable basis in law.”  “[The court] disagree[s].”  “The FBI initially declined to conduct the search because it believed the system contained no responsive records.”  “The reasonableness of that position is evidenced by the fact that the subsequent . . . search [of that system] yielded zero responsive records.”  “[The court] therefore agree[s] with the District Court’s determination that the FBI’s decision to not search the . . . system had a reasonable basis in law.”  “Because three of the four . . . factors in this case weigh against the award of fees, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying [the requester’s] motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under FOIA’s fee-shifting provision.”