Eastern District of Virginia Awards Attorney's Fees and Costs Under FOIA 

Jarno v. Department of Homeland Security, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6912 (E.D. Vir.). 

The Plaintiff, an orphaned political asylum seeker from Guinea, sought documents relating to his immigration proceedings and detention by federal immigration officials under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). After receiving no response to his request for over three months (far beyond the statutory deadline of 20 to 30 days for response), the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The parties agreed to terms by which the DHS would produce the requested materials, and the Court signed an Agreed Order in accordance with those terms. Pursuant to the Court's Order, DHS provided the requested documents and Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss all claims and requested an award of attorney's fees and court costs. 

Courts typically do not award attorney's fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority. However, Congress has authorized district courts to shift attorney's fees and costs in cases brought under FOIA. The Act states that the Court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.  The plaintiff is required to show first that he is eligible for, and second, that he is entitled to the fees and costs. 

A prevailing party is one whose lawsuit results in the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties. The Court found that even though the parties reached an agreement on their own, the Court issued an Order that materially altered the legal relationship of the parties and provided the Plaintiff with the relief that he sought in his claim. The Order provided that the parties had agreed to terms, but also gave specific dates on which DHS would be required to provide the information that was requested. Additionally, the Order provided for the Court's ongoing supervision and the Court retained the power to enforce its Order. Therefore, the Court found that the Order was a court-approved settlement that materially altered the legal relationship of the parties, and that the Plaintiff was eligible for attorney's fees and costs. 

After finding that the Plaintiff was a prevailing party and therefore eligible for fees and costs, the Court stated that it must weigh four factors in order to determine whether the Plaintiff is entitled to fees and costs. These factors include 1) the public benefit derived form the case, 2) the commercial benefit to the Plaintiff, 3) the nature of the Plaintiff's interest in the records sought, and 4) whether DHS's withholding of the information had a reasonable basis in law. The Court found that the public benefited from the Plaintiff's action under FOIA because the documents requested provided information to the public regarding DHS's handling of the Plaintiff's high profile political asylum case. The Court reasoned that since the case had drawn substantial media attention, these media reports illuminated for the public the overall immigration policies of DHS and of the United States. The Court stated that attorney's fees are appropriate where a FOIA response helps to protect the public's interest in the "fair and just" administration of justice. The Court concluded that it had considered all of the factors required, and in light of the facts that DHS did not question the reasonableness of the amounts sought and that the Plaintiff proved to the Court that the fees were reasonable, that the Plaintiff was entitled to a full award of attorney's fees and costs.