×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
DC Circuit Awards Fees in CIA FOIA Suit
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the appellee in this case was a prevailing party in a lawsuit to enforce his request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and remanded to determine if he was entitled to attorney fees.
The appellee, William Davy Jr., filed a FOIA request with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking documents in its alleged role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. After the CIA denied his request Davy filed suit in federal court, which resulted in the district court entering an order requiring the CIA to provide Davy with responsive documents by certain dates. This was an enforceable order.
The Appeals Court said that "in order for plaintiffs in FOIA actions to become eligible for an award of attorneys fees, they must have 'been awarded some relief by a court,' either in a judgment on the merits or in a court-ordered consent decree." Because the district court's order was not for just a search for records but a requirement to produce documents, the "legal relationship between [the plaintiff] and the defendant changed," making Davy the party that "substantially prevailed."
The district court, however, failed to assess four factors to determine if Davy was entitled to attorney fees under the FOIA. The Appeals Court, therefore, remanded for that court to determine "(1) the public benefit derived from the case; (2) the commercial benefit to the plaintiff; (3) the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the records; and (4) the reasonableness of the agency's withholding." See: Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
The appellee, William Davy Jr., filed a FOIA request with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking documents in its alleged role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. After the CIA denied his request Davy filed suit in federal court, which resulted in the district court entering an order requiring the CIA to provide Davy with responsive documents by certain dates. This was an enforceable order.
The Appeals Court said that "in order for plaintiffs in FOIA actions to become eligible for an award of attorneys fees, they must have 'been awarded some relief by a court,' either in a judgment on the merits or in a court-ordered consent decree." Because the district court's order was not for just a search for records but a requirement to produce documents, the "legal relationship between [the plaintiff] and the defendant changed," making Davy the party that "substantially prevailed."
The district court, however, failed to assess four factors to determine if Davy was entitled to attorney fees under the FOIA. The Appeals Court, therefore, remanded for that court to determine "(1) the public benefit derived from the case; (2) the commercial benefit to the plaintiff; (3) the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the records; and (4) the reasonableness of the agency's withholding." See: Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir. 2006) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |