UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOUISE TRAUMA CENTER LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01128 (TNM) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Louise Trauma Center LLC filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS). After no response, the Center sued under FOIA. The merits of this dispute have been resolved, and now the Court considers the Center’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court finds that the Center is entitled to and eligible for fees. But because the Center’s request is excessive, the Court will award it less than it seeks. I. The Center is a nonprofit organization that helps “immigrant women who have suffered from gender-based violence” obtain asylum in the United States. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1. It submitted four FOIA requests to USCIS about the agency’s handling of a particular FOIA provision and its related training for asylum officers. 1 See Compl. Exs. A–D, ECF Nos. 1-1–1-4. USCIS failed to respond within the statutory period, so the Center sued under FOIA. The agency then searched for responsive records and produced thousands of pages. See Joint Status Report 1 The listed Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of USCIS. But based on the record, USCIS employees conducted the searches and resolved the Center’s requests. So when describing actions of the Defendant, the Court will refer to USCIS, not the Department. at 1, ECF No. 10. The agency withheld some information under various FOIA exemptions. See id. After these disclosures, the Center voluntarily dismissed Count III of its Complaint and confirmed that USCIS had fully responded to the FOIA request comprising Count I. See Joint Status Report at 1, ECF No. 12. But the Center moved for summary judgment on Counts II and IV, asserting that the agency’s searches were inadequate. See First Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 11. USCIS also moved for summary judgment, see ECF No. 15, but then it sought a stay after discovering that there were “gaps in the search parameters for possible responsive information.” Mot. to Stay at 1, ECF No. 19. So USCIS conducted a supplement search and released more records to the Center, again withholding certain information under various FOIA exemptions. See Decl. of Jennifer Piateski (Piateski Decl.) ¶ 12, ECF No. 28-4. The Court ordered a new round of briefing to avoid piecemeal challenges. See Min. Order, July 16, 2021. The parties again moved for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 28-2; Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (Pl.’s MSJ), ECF No. 29-1. The Center sought summary judgment on Counts I and III because USCIS did not respond within the allotted time. See Pl.’s MSJ at 5, 14. The Court denied the motion as to those counts, reasoning that the Center already “jettisoned” those claims. See Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. DHS, No. 20-cv-1128, 2022 WL 1081097, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2022) (explaining that the Center dismissed Count …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals