UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) URBAN AIR INITIATIVE, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 15-1333 (ABJ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) AGENCY, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION The Urban Air Initiative, Inc. and Energy Future Coalition have filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). Pls.’ Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [Dkt. # 71] (“Pls.’ Mot.”). Plaintiffs seek a total award of $189,288.40, including: $141,792.60 for litigation-phase fees; $400 in costs; and $47,095.80 in “fees-on-fees” for time spent negotiating and drafting the motion and reply in support of their motion for attorneys’ fees. Id. at 2; Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [Dkt. # 78] (“Pls.’ Reply”) at 24. Defendant Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) maintains plaintiffs are neither eligible for, nor entitled to, a FOIA fee award, and that the amount sought is unreasonable. Def.’s Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. [Dkt. # 75] (“Def.’s Opp.”) at 34– 35. The Court finds that plaintiffs are eligible for and entitled to a fee award, but the amount requested was not reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will award a reduced fee in the amount of $75,400.00. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The Urban Air Initiative (“UAI”) is a nonprofit social welfare organization dedicated to educating the public about health threats posed by petroleum-based fuels. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶ 3. Energy Future Coalition (“EFC”) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing practical and bi-partisan solutions to energy and environmental policy challenges. Id. ¶ 4. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress instructed the EPA to produce an updated vehicle emissions model that considered the effect of individual fuel properties on emissions from vehicles. Declaration of Kathryn Sargeant [Dkt. # 19-3] (“Sargeant Decl.”) ¶ 10. In order to create this model, which would become known as the MOVES2014 model, the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Coordinating Research Council conducted a study entitled EPAct/V2/E–89 Tier 2 Gasoline Fuel Effects Study (“EPAct study”). Id. ¶ 8; Compl. ¶ 6. Ultimately, the MOVES2014 model included data from a range of sources, including the EPAct Study. Sargeant Decl. ¶ 10. According to plaintiffs, the EPAct study was the “basis for erroneous emissions factors” in MOVES2014 and would result in increased air pollution. Compl. ¶ 7. Specifically, “the MOVES2014 model projects that increasing concentration of ethanol in gasoline contributes to increased emissions of various pollutants,” but plaintiffs contend that “in reality, ethanol reduces emissions of these pollutants.” Id. So plaintiffs, along with the states of Kansas and Nebraska, petitioned for judicial review of EPA’s MOVES2014 model in the D.C. Circuit, partially on the basis of “pollution modeling errors that are the direct result of defects in the EPAct study’s design.” Id. ¶ 10; Ex. A to Compl. [Dkt. # 1-1] (“Kansas v. EPA Brief”). Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request on February 9, 2015 to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals