ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Howard Bloomgarden sued the Department of Justice ("DOJ") to compel the production of records by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq. (Am. Compl., Nov. 9, 2012, ECF No. 11.) After years of litigation, the government produced 2,035 unredacted pages and 1,013 partially redacted pages of the 3,700-page file that plaintiff requested. (Pl.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Atty's Fees ("Pl.'s Mot."), Sept. 29, 2016, ECF No. 145-1, at 8.) Plaintiff now moves for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). (Id. at 1, 9.) The government disputes that plaintiff is entitled to fees and costs and argues that, even if plaintiff were entitled to fees, the government should pay less than plaintiff seeks. (Def.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Atty's Fees ("Def.'s Opp'n"), Oct. 26, 2016, ECF No. 147, at 5.)
Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion, defendant's opposition, and plaintiff's reply (Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s Opp'n ("Pl.'s Reply"), Nov. 7, 2016, ECF No. 149), and for the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs pursuant to FOIA but less than the amount requested.
This Court has described in detail the background of this case in its earlier opinions. (See Mem. Op., Jan. 22, 2014, ECF No. 31, at 1-4; Mem. Op., Feb. 5, 2016, ECF No. 106, at 1-3; Mem. Op. & Order, April 13, 2016, ECF No. 118, at 1-2; Mem. Op., July 19, 2016, ECF No. 134, at 1-2.) It will therefore limit its discussion to those of the facts that are relevant to plaintiff's current request for attorney's fees.
Plaintiff filed this FOIA action in 2012 in order to obtain the disciplinary file of a former Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York ("USAO-EDNY"). Plaintiff hoped that these documents would provide evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, which plaintiff had raised as a defense to the California state murder charges that had been brought against him. Plaintiff continued to press his FOIA request after he was convicted of those charges in 2014, to support his motion for a new trial.
After plaintiff filed his FOIA request, the EOUSA searched without success for the requested documents.
While plaintiff's appeal was pending, another agency of the government located documents responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request, including a 35-page disciplinary letter. Bloomgarden v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 2014 WL 6725736, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2014) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal as moot and remanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings. Id.
On remand, this Court ordered the parties to confer and file a joint status report. (Minute Order, Jan. 14, 2015.) Plaintiff continued to seek disclosure of the entire disciplinary file, but the government refused to release any of the requested documents. (Status Report, Jan. 28, 2015, ECF No. 41, at 1-2.) After reviewing the parties' status report, the Court ordered the government to produce an unredacted copy of the 35-page disciplinary letter for in camera review. (Order, Feb. 20, 2015, ECF No. 42.) At the March 4, 2015 status conference, the Court set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions and ordered the government to produce a Vaughn Index outlining the legal bases for withholding the disciplinary file. (See Minute Order, Mar. 10, 2015.) On May 26, 2015, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. (Pl.'s Mot. For Summ. J., ECF No. 49.) The government cross-moved for summary judgment on July 15, 2015. (Def.'s Mot. For Summ. J., ECF No. 67).
As this Court noted,
(Mem. Op. & Order, April 13, 2016, at 2 (citations omitted).)
Because of the "complete waste of time and expense that creating a proper Index would entail," the Court proposed — and the parties agreed — that
(Order, Feb. 17, 2017, ECF No. 110, at 1.) When the government indicated that it would withhold all court documents originally filed under seal, the Court ordered the government to file an index of the documents withheld pursuant to Morgan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 923 F.2d 195 (D.C. Cir. 1991). (Minute Order, Nov. 16, 2015.) The Court ultimately rejected the government's Morgan claims and ordered the government to produce the court filings that had been filed under seal some twenty years earlier. (Order, Jan. 5, 2016, ECF No. 100, at 1.)
Notwithstanding the Court's proposal, plaintiff moved for a new Vaughn index, which the government agreed to produce.
(Mem. Op. & Order, April 13, 2016, at 2 (citations omitted).) Granting the government's Motion to Amend, the Court allowed the government to raise new legal bases for withholding documents in order to protect informants and other third parties who might otherwise be prejudiced by disclosure. (Id. at 5.) At the same time, the Court ordered the government to release to plaintiff all reasonably segregable information within the withheld documents. (Id.)
In June 2016, the parties again cross-moved for summary judgment with respect to the documents the government continued to withhold. (Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., June 8, 2016, ECF No. 127; Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., June 20, 2016, ECF No. 129.) Finding the government was correct in withholding the remaining documents, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Mem. Op., July 19, 2016, at 7.) This Motion for Attorney's Fees followed plaintiff's unsuccessful Motion to Amend Judgment. (See Order, Aug. 12, 2016, ECF No. 141.)
FOIA provides that courts "may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case ... in which the complainant has substantially prevailed." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i). As the D.C. Circuit has explained, the fee-shifting statute's language
Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2011). If a court finds that a litigant is both eligible and entitled to fees pursuant to FOIA, the court must then consider whether the moving party has met its burden to establish that the requested fees are reasonable. See Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 218 F.Supp.3d 27, 38, 2016 WL 6879251, at *6 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2016) ("The party seeking fees has the additional burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fees requested.")
Here, plaintiff contends, and the government agrees, that he is eligible for fees under the first prong of the attorney-fee inquiry. (Pls.' Mot. at 9; Def.'s Opp'n at 5.) However, the government argues that plaintiff is not entitled to fees under the second prong of the inquiry and that, even if he were, "the amount [plaintiff] seeks is disproportionate to the work that led to the release of documents." (Def.'s Opp'n at 5.)
To be eligible for attorney's fees pursuant to FOIA, the party seeking fees must have "substantially prevailed" in the litigation. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i). A party has "substantially prevailed" by obtaining relief through either "a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree" or through "a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency,
To determine whether a FOIA plaintiff who is eligible for a fee award is also entitled to a fee award, courts must assess four factors: "(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." Davy v. C.I.A., 456 F.3d 162, 166 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("Davy I") (quoting Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). While "[n]o one factor is dispositive" of the plaintiff's entitlement to fees, "the court will not assess fees when the agency has demonstrated that it had a lawful right to withhold disclosure." Davy v. CIA., 550 F.3d 1155, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("Davy II") (citations omitted). "The sifting of those criteria over the facts of a case is a matter of district court discretion." Tax Analysts, 965 F.2d at 1094 (citing Church of Scientology v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584, 590 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Below, the Court considers each factor in light of the particular circumstances of this case.
The first factor to consider when determining whether a FOIA litigant is entitled to fees is the "public benefit." This factor weighs in favor of an award of attorney's fees "where the complainant's victory is likely to add to the fund of public information that citizens may use in making vital political choices." Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). "This first factor requires consideration of both the effect of the litigation for which fees are requested and the public value of the information sought." Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. F.B.I., 72 F.Supp.3d 338, 345 (D.D.C. 2014) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff does not contend that the records produced here "per se" benefit the public, but instead he argues that "the public interest in the records sought is plainly significant" because plaintiff believed those records could have revealed prosecutorial misconduct. (Pl.'s Mot. at 10-11.) The government responds that the public interest in the documents that plaintiff requested was negligible at best, as plaintiff hoped to further his efforts to secure a new trial in California state court, not inform the public of government misconduct. (Def.'s Opp'n at 6.) The government has the better argument.
Here, plaintiff's success is not "likely to add to the fund of public information that citizens may use in making vital political choices." See Cotton, 63 F.3d at 1120. The D.C. Circuit has made it clear that a "personal stake in using the requested records to attack [a FOIA litigant's] convictions does not count in the calculation of the public interest." Oguaju v. United States, 288 F.3d 448, 450 (D.C. Cir. 2002), vacated on other grounds, 541 U.S. 970, 124 S.Ct. 1903, 158 L.Ed.2d 464 (2004), reinstated, 378 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Further, the records here implicated a single, low-level prosecutor, not widespread or high-level corruption in the government. As this Court has noted, the vast majority of the 3,700-page file that plaintiff requested has "little if any value to anyone, including plaintiff." (Order, Feb. 17, 2016, at 1.) And, "even if the records [plaintiff] s[ought] would reveal wrongdoing in his case, exposing a single, garden-variety
The second and third factors that courts must consider in determining a FOIA litigants entitlement to attorney's fees are the "commercial benefit" and the "plaintiff's interest." Because the second and third factors are closely related, they are often evaluated together. Tax Analysts, 965 F.2d at 1095; see Fenster, 617 F.2d at 743 ("Two of the four criteria are closely related in this case: the commercial benefit to the complainant and the nature of the complainant's interest in the record sought."). "FOIA was fundamentally designed to inform the public and not to benefit private litigants.... Accordingly, when a litigant seeks disclosure for a commercial benefit or out of other personal motives, an award of attorney's fees is generally inappropriate." Tax Analysts, 965 F.2d at 1095 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Fenster, 617 F.2d at 743.
With respect to the second factor, it is undisputed that plaintiff derived no commercial benefit from his FOIA request. (See Pl.'s Mot. at 12; Def.'s Opp'n at 8-9.) With respect to the third factor, plaintiff "acknowledges that he had a personal incentive to seek the documents at issue as he hoped that they might help him uncover federal-state prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to grant him a new trial in his criminal case." (Pl.'s Mot. at 12.) Plaintiff argues that, notwithstanding his personal interest, "his criminal proceedings are a subject of consistent, long-time public interest" and that, were he to succeed in securing an evidentiary hearing for a new trial in his criminal matter, "the private interest here and the public interest will eventually converge." (Id.) The government responds that the nature of plaintiff's interest counsels against a fee award for the same reasons that plaintiff's FOIA litigation was not for the public benefit. (See Def.'s Opp'n at 8-9.)
While it is true that plaintiff did not seek to gain a commercial benefit through his FOIA suit, he sought to further his personal interest by trying to use the requested documents to collaterally attack his conviction in California state court. As explained above, there is no public interest in plaintiff's attempt to uncover evidence that would absolve him of criminal liability. See Oguaju, 288 F.3d at 450. Because of plaintiff's personal motivation to seek the disciplinary file, the Court finds that the third and fourth factors together weigh against plaintiff's fee request. See Tax Analysts, 965 F.2d at 1095.
The fourth factor courts must consider is whether the agency's withholding of the records "had a reasonable basis in law." Id. at 1096. This factor "is intended to weed out those cases in which the government was `recalcitrant in its opposition to a valid claim or otherwise engaged in obdurate behavior.'" Id. at 1097 (quoting Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Indeed, one of the "twin congressional goals" of FOIA's attorney's fees provision is to provide "compensation for enduring an agency's unreasonable obduracy in refusing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act's requirements." LaSalle Extension Univ. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 627 F.2d 481, 484 (D.C. Cir. 1980). If the government's withholding
Plaintiff argues that "[e]xcept as to thirteen documents that his Court authorized the Government to withhold ..., the Government's withholdings had absolutely no basis in law and needlessly, grotesquely, protracted this litigation." (Pl.'s Mot. at 13.) Thus, given the statutory goal to compensate litigants faced with unreasonable government obduracy, plaintiff reasons that "this factor alone strongly weighs in favor of an award of fees." (Id. (citing Cuneo, 553 F.2d at 1365-66).) With good reason, the government concedes that "it should have produced the public and segregable documents in the file earlier." (Def.'s Opp'n at 10.) However, the government argues that this factor is nevertheless "neutral" because the Court "ordered the release of some documents and upheld the withholding of others." (Id. (citing Nkihtaqmikon v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 672 F.Supp.2d 154, 173 (D. Me. 2009)).)
While the government was correct in its withholding of a number of documents, this litigation was plagued by the government's obdurate and recalcitrant behavior. The government initially refused to release any documents, including public documents. When the government first attempted to create a Vaughn index, it was "woefully inadequate," so the Court was unable to evaluate the government's invocation of FOIA exemptions. (Mem. Op. & Order, April 13, 2016, at 2.) Further, the government neglected its duty to produce any reasonably segregable materials from documents otherwise protected from disclosure, requiring the Court to order it to do so. As the Court noted when the government sought to raise new legal bases for withholding documents, in violation of Maydak v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the government "needlessly complicated and prolonged this litigation." (Mem. Op. and Order, April 13, 2016, at 4.) For the above reasons, the Court finds that the fourth factor weighs heavily in favor of awarding fees.
The Court is mindful that no single factor is dispositive of the FOIA fee-entitlement inquiry, and it considers the factors in light of the "twin congressional goals" of the FOIA fee-shifting provision. See LaSalle Extension Univ. v. F.T.C., 627 F.2d 481, 484 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The first goal — "to encourage [FOIA] suits that benefit the public interest" — is not served by this lawsuit. See id. Given plaintiff's "sufficient private interest in the requested information," he "d[id] not need the additional incentive of recovering [his] fees and costs" to bring his FOIA suit. See id.
The second goal of the FOIA fee-shifting provision is to provide compensation to a successful litigant "for enduring an agency's unreasonable obduracy in refusing to comply with [FOIA's] requirements." Id. Congress did not intend a FOIA litigant who had a private interest to bring the FOIA suit or received a pecuniary benefit from the lawsuit to collect fees "unless the government officials have been recalcitrant in their opposition to a valid claim or have been otherwise engaged in obdurate behavior." Id. (quoting S. Rep. No.854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1974)). Because the government's obduracy unnecessarily prolonged this litigation, the second goal of
In sum, even though the first three factors do not favor an award of fees, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to recover a portion of his attorney's fees, given the government's obdurate behavior that unnecessarily prolonged this litigation.
Having found plaintiff eligible for and entitled to fees, the Court must now evaluate the reasonableness of plaintiff's requested fees and costs. Plaintiff "has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of [his] fee request, and supporting documentation must be of sufficient detail and probative value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended." Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 970 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (alteration, citations, and quotation marks omitted).
"The usual method of calculating reasonable attorney's fees is to multiply the hours reasonably expended in the litigation by a reasonable hourly fee, producing the `lodestar' amount." Bd. of Trs. of Hotel & Rest. Emps. Local 25 v. JPR, Inc., 136 F.3d 794, 801 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Once a court determines the proper lodestar amount, it has discretion to adjust that amount for "nonproductive time or for time expended on issues on which plaintiff ultimately did not prevail." Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec'y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). However, fees should not be excluded for such work unless they are "truly fractionable" from the claims on which the litigant prevailed. Nat'l Ass'n of Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1338 n.13 (quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 892 n.18 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc)). "The burden of justifying any deviation from the `lodestar' rests on the party proposing the deviation." Copeland, 641 F.2d at 892. "When the Government seeks to rebut a rate or calculation or hours billed, it must provide just as plaintiff must provide specific evidence in his application for attorney's fees — `equally specific countervailing evidence.'" Piper v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 339 F.Supp.2d 13, 24 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1326)).
Courts must also "consider whether the success obtained on the remaining claims is proportional to the efforts expended by counsel." George Hyman Const. Co. v. Brooks, 963 F.2d 1532, 1535 (D.C. Cir. 1992). If it is not, the "hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole... may be an excessive amount." Id. (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Accordingly, courts in this Circuit routinely reduce compensable fees by a uniform percentage to reflect the litigants' actual success. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. D.H.S., 982 F.Supp.2d 56, 63 (D.D.C. 2013); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 878 F.Supp.2d 225, 239 (D.D.C. 2012).
Based on his billing records, plaintiff submits that the lodestar in this case is $154,885.00. (Pl.'s Mot. at 14.) Plaintiff concedes
The government does not challenge plaintiff's lodestar methodology, nor does it challenge the sufficiency of the billing records. Rather, the government argues that reductions should be made for unproductive or unsuccessful work. According to the government, based on plaintiff's limited success, (1) plaintiff should not recover any fees incurred before June 30, 2014; (2) plaintiff should recover no more than 20% of the lodestar for work performed between June 30, 2014, and February 17, 2016; and (3) plaintiff should not recover any fees incurred after February 17, 2016. The government therefore proposes a maximum recovery of fees in the amount of $28,272.62. (Def.'s Opp'n at 12.)
The government first argues that plaintiff should not recover any fees for legal work performed prior to June 30, 2014. (Id.) This time period covers all legal work from the filing of plaintiff's complaint through the government's discovery of responsive documents while plaintiff's appeal was pending before the D.C. Circuit. The government reasons that, because this Court found that the government's initial search for the documents was reasonable and therefore granted the government's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff is not entitled to any fees until he began litigating the release of the file. (Id. at 12-13). The Court agrees.
Prior to discovering the disciplinary file, the government did not act obdurately or otherwise unnecessarily prolong the litigation. To the contrary, as found by the Court in its January 23, 2014 Memorandum Opinion, in addition to conducting an adequate search of the files of the USAO-EDNY and EOUSA, the government "expanded its search for responsive documents... even though it was under no legal obligation to do so" by forwarding plaintiff's FOIA requests to the National Personnel Records Center, which stores the official personnel folders of former government employees. (Id. at 8.) Indeed, the fact that the search did not uncover the requested documents does not mean it was inadequate, and this Court found that plaintiff's claims to the contrary were unavailing. (Id. at 9.) On this basis, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 10.) Consequently, plaintiff did not prevail in this first phase of litigation.
Further, the legal work performed in opposing the government's motion for summary judgment can be reasonably separated from plaintiff's successful legal work. The responsive documents were ultimately located by another federal agency in connection with a separate FOIA request, and plaintiff was promptly notified. (Tr. of Status. Conf., March 4, 2015, ECF No. 45, at 7:4-11.) It was not until the records were located that plaintiff could begin seeking disclosure of the individual documents that the Court ultimately ordered the government to release. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff should not recover
Next, the government argues that plaintiff should recover no more than 20% of the legal fees incurred between June 30, 2014, and February 17, 2016. (Def.'s Opp'n at 13.) Plaintiff argues that he should recover 35% of the fees incurred between June 30, 2014, and November 4, 2015 ($39,025.00) and 90% of the fees incurred between November 5, 2015, and February 17, 2016 ($26,001.00). (See Pl.'s Mot. at 14.)
In June 2014, the government notified plaintiff that it had located the disciplinary file. As a result, the D.C. Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal, and the matter was remanded to this Court for further proceedings. Thereafter, the Court ordered the government to produce over 2,000 unredacted pages and over 1,000 partially redacted pages of the disciplinary file. In particular, following the November 4, 2015 hearing, the Court ordered the government to "disclose to plaintiff ... any public documents contained in the exhibits to the disciplinary file, with the exception of any Speedy Trial Act waivers." (Minute Order, Nov. 4, 2015). On the basis of that Order, the government produced 724 unredacted pages of documents. (See Pl.'s Mot. at 9.) On January 5, 2016, the Court rejected the government's Morgan claims for withholding court documents that had been filed under seal and ordered the government to "produce all withheld court records to plaintiff." (Order, Jan. 5, 2016.) The government subsequently released 84 previously sealed court documents and 1,114 additional pages of unredacted public documents. (See Pl.'s Mot. at 9.) Finally, on February 17, 2016, the Court ordered the government to produce a new Vaughn index and to "conduct a diligent segregability review and disclose ... whatever portion of the requested documents can be reasonably segregated from the withheld material." (Order, Feb. 17, 2016.) In response, the government produced 1,013 partially redacted pages and 197 unredacted pages of documents that had previously been withheld. (See Pl.'s Mot. at 9.)
While these released released did not serve the public interest, the government's obduracy during this time period protracted the litigation and resulted in plaintiff's attorneys billing over 500 hours during this time period. (See Ex. D, Pl.'s Mot.) The government acknowledges that it should have released the public documents
Indeed, the government refused to produce any documents after the disciplinary file was located, and its first attempt at a Vaughn index was "useless, deficient," and "[a] complete waste of ... time." (Tr. of Nov. 4, 2016 Hearing, ECF No. 81, at 7.) After the Court ordered that certain documents be sent to the Judge presiding over plaintiff's California state criminal proceedings, the government unsuccessfully (and unnecessarily) sought clarification of that Order, based on its purported confusion about whether this Court would "retain full control over the documents." (Def.'s Mot. to Clarify, Nov. 30, 2015, ECF No. 84.) Moreover, even after the Court ordered the government to produce to plaintiff the public documents contained within the disciplinary file, the government continued to withhold court documents that had been filed under seal some twenty years earlier. The Court later rejected the government's baseless Morgan claims. (Order, Jan. 5, 2016, at 2.) Had the government simply turned over the public documents, performed the segregability review, and created a legally sufficient Vaughn index, this lawsuit could have been resolved with far fewer than the over 500 hours plaintiff's attorneys spent during this time period.
However, plaintiff's success here was not "proportional to the efforts expended by counsel," and the award plaintiff has requested is therefore "excessive." See George Hyman Const., 963 F.2d at 1535. Plaintiff concedes that he did not prevail on the release of the 35-page disciplinary letter or on the documents that the government continued to withhold at the end of the litigation. Further, as the government points out, the bulk of plaintiff's legal work was spent on issues on which plaintiff did not prevail. For instance, plaintiff devoted approximately one page of his 22-page motion for summary judgment to his argument that the public documents from the disciplinary file should be released. (See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., May 26, 2015, ECF No. 57, at 22-23.) The Court agreed that the government should release those public documents. (Order, Nov. 16, 2015.) It, however, was not persuaded by the reasoning of the other 21 pages of plaintiff's arguments in his first motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff also spent time raising unproductive and unnecessary issues during this time period. For instance, even after the Court had announced its ruling as to the 35-page disciplinary letter in two separate hearings, plaintiff suggested that the ruling was merely "tentative," requiring this Court to issue a Memorandum Opinion to "dispel any further doubt." (Mem. Op., Feb. 5, 2016, at 3.) Plaintiff also moved for a new Vaughn index, even though the Court proposed — and the parties agreed — that plaintiff would forego the index in exchange for the disclosure of previously withheld public documents and the transmission of certain documents to Judge Rappe in California. (See Order, Feb. 17, 2017.)
Plaintiff's attorneys' improper billing techniques also justify a lower recovery. Both Howard Anderson and Torrence Lewis submitted bills for travel time at 100% of their normal hourly rate, and Torrence Lewis engaged in block billing. (See, e.g., Ex. D, Pl.'s Mot., (billing 12 hours on Nov. 4, 2015, for "DC motions hearing; preparation and appearance (travel); consultation with co-counsel and client regarding same").) "[I]n this Circuit, travel time is compensated at half of the attorney's rate," and it was therefore improper to bill travel time at 100% of the attorney's rate. McAllister v. Dist. of Columbia, 21 F.Supp.3d 94, 106 (D.D.C. 2014). However, many of the travel entries are block billed, making specific reductions more difficult. Block billing involves lumping multiple tasks into a single time entry, which can "mak[e] it impossible to evaluate their reasonableness." See Brownlee, 353 F.3d at 971. While block billing is not "prohibit[ed]," courts often reduce fee awards as a result of it. See id.; Bennett v. Castro, 74 F.Supp.3d 382, 406 (D.D.C. 2014); In re InPhonic, Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d 273, 289 (D.D.C. 2009); Summers v. Howard Univ., 2006 WL 751316, at *7 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2006). Even if tasks are adequately described, there is simply no way for the Court to assess whether the time spent on each of those tasks was reasonable or to make reductions to certain activities, like travel, when the tasks are lumped together. See Brownlee, 353 F.3d at 970 (the court must "determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended" (quoting In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1989))). Thus, given the difficulty of disambiguating the block billed entries either to reduce travel-time recovery or to evaluate the reasonableness of the entries themselves, the Court will reduce plaintiff's recovery by an additional 4%.
In sum, while the government's proposal of awarding 20% of plaintiff's fees during this time period would understate the degree of plaintiff's success and would almost amount to a free pass for the government's obdurate behavior, plaintiff's proposed award significantly overstates his success, especially given the fact that the documents that were properly withheld were of far greater importance than the thousands of pages that were produced. For the aforementioned reasons, after reducing the award by 70% (33% for limited success, 33% for duplicative efforts, and 4% for improper billing techniques), the Court will award 30% of plaintiff's attorney's fees incurred between June 30, 2014, and February 17, 2016. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011) ("The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.")
Finally, the government argues that plaintiff should not recover any fees for legal work performed after February 17, 2016. (Def.'s Opp'n at 13.) During this time period, the parties filed final cross-motions for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed an unsuccessful Motion to Alter Judgment. Plaintiff did not prevail on any issue after the Court ordered the government to disclose any segregable portions of the documents at issue on February 17, 2016. (See id.) Nor does plaintiff identify any issues on which he substantially prevailed after February 17, 2016. (See Pl.'s Mot. at 9). With the exception of work performed preparing plaintiff's fee petition, the Court therefore agrees with the government that plaintiff is not entitled to fees for legal work performed after this date.
The government prevailed on the parties' final cross-motions for summary judgment, as the Court found that it had properly withheld the remaining documents. (Mem. Op., July 19, 2016, at 7.) Further, plaintiff did not prevail on his Motion to Alter Judgment, which argued that the Court's July 19, 2016 Order dismissing the case failed to satisfy Rule 58(a)'s "separate document" requirement. (Order, Aug. 12, 2016.) The legal work on the final summary judgment motion and plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment can be reasonably separated from the legal work on which he prevailed. Accordingly, the Court will not award fees for legal work performed after February 17, 2016, except for time spent preparing the present Motion for Attorney's Fees.
The government's arguments for fee reductions do not address plaintiff's entitlement to "fees on fees" — the time spent preparing the fee petition — even though that legal work occurred after February 17, 2016. (See Pl.'s Reply at 5-6.) Plaintiff requests an award of $4,050.00, 90% of the fees incurred as a result of the 17.5 hours spent preparing his Motion for Attorney's Fees and Reply Brief. (See Ex. D, Pl.'s Mot.; Pl.'s Reply at 6 n.2.) As with plaintiff's period of successful legal work, the Court will award 30% of plaintiff's "fees on fees." See EPIC, 982 F.Supp.2d at 61 (reducing the award of "fees on fees" work to the same extent the award for merits work was reduced.)
The Court notes that the hours expended on the fee petition are overstated by the duplication of efforts that justified a uniform reduction of plaintiff's other fees. Torrence Lewis billed 6.5 hours at $350 per hour ($2,275 total) for producing a time table. (See Ex. D, Pl.'s Mot.) This was more than twice the amount of time that Howard Anderson billed for drafting the memorandum in support of the motion itself, and more than four times the amount of time that Scott Hodes spent compiling his time table. Mr. Lewis employed paralegals who would have been more than capable of compiling the time tables of hours at a significantly lower hourly rate.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs will be
Date Name Description Hours Rate Total Fee % $ Award Award 7/18/2012 CCA Digitize and email recent FOIA acknowledgment 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/2/2012 CCA Review, digitize FOIA letter 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 3/12/2013 CCA Research re and email, tc FOIA atty Hoden. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0 0 3/13/2013 CCA Tc FOIA atty 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 3/15/2013 CCA Check DC docket 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 3/20/2013 SAH Entry of Appearance 0.5 $300 $150.00 0 0 3/21/2013 CCA Research Washington DC docket 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 3/21/2013 SAH Initial Consultation w/AUSA on case 0.5 $300 $150.00 0 0 4/9/2013 SAH Letter to AUSA — re: scope of search 0.5 $300 $150.00 0 0 7/26/2013 CCA Check DC docket 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 8/5/2013 CCA Check DC docket 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 8/21/2013 CCA Email Scott Hodes re draft FOIA letters 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 8/22/2013 CCA Emails RW, SH re FOIAs 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 8/26/2013 SAH Draft opposed Motion for enlargement of time 1 $300 $300.00 0 0 9/11/2013 CCA Review emails S Hodes re Govt Motion for Summary Judgment 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 9/11/2013 SAH Draft/edit Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 1 $300 $300.00 0 0 9/16/2013 SAH Draft/edit Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 1 $300 $300.00 0 0 9/17/2013 SAH Draft/edit Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 1 $300 $300.00 0 0 9/18/2013 SAH Draft/edit Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 1 $300 $300.00 0 0 9/24/2013 SAH Draft/edit Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 1.5 $300 $450.00 0 0 9/25/2013 SAH Draft/edit Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 1 $300 $300.00 0 0 9/26/2013 SAH Consultation with client regarding Defendant's motion FOR summary 0.5 $300 $150.00 0 0 9/30/2013 SAH Draft/edit opposition for summary judgment 0.5 $300 $150.00 0 0 10/1/2013 CCA Review Hodes emails re FOIAs 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/3/2013 CCA Draft emails JE re DC case decls; 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 10/3/2013 CCA Scan and email HB certificate of ID to Hodes. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 10/3/2013 CCA Monitor DC case documents. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/3/2013 CCA Draft, review HB/JE decls re DC case. 2.2 $75 $165.00 0 0 10/3/2013 CCA Draft memo to S Hodes re HB thoughts re DC case motion. 1.9 $75 $142.50 0 0 10/3/2013 CCA Email S Hodes re HB thoughts re draft motion. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0 0 10/4/2013 CCA Emails S Hodes re HB, Islip references in recent govt doc. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/4/2013 CCA Email JE re DC decl. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 10/7/2013 CCA Tcs S Hodes re DC case. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0
10/7/2013 CCA Edit HB, JE decls; prepare supporting documentation. 1.4 $75 $105.00 0 0 10/7/2013 CCA Draft emails S Hodes re HB concerns, decls. 1 $75 $75.00 0 0 10/7/2013 CCA Emails JE re decls. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 10/7/2013 SAH Draft/edit opposition for summary judgment 3 $300 $900.00 0 0 10/8/2013 CCA Edit HB decl. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 10/8/2013 CCA Drive to Twin Towers jail facility to conf HB, R/T. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0 0 10/8/2013 CCA Conf HB, have HB sign decl for DC case. 2.1 $75 $157.50 0 0 10/8/2013 CCA Scan HB decl for transmission to S Hodes for filing; prepare decl exhs. 0.6 $75 $45.00 0 0 10/8/2013 CCA Emails S Hodes re re HB, DC case. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 10/9/2013 CCA Tc HB. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 10/9/2013 CCA Acquire and format JE decl for DC case. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 10/9/2013 CCA Review DC filing, decls. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 10/9/2013 SAH Draft/edit opposition for summary judgment 2 $300 $600.00 0 0 10/10/2013 CCA Email S Hodes re HB msgs. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/15/2013 CCA Check DC docket. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/17/2013 CCA Organize DC case file materials. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 10/31/2013 CCA Review Hodes FOIA response letter re NARA. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 3/17/2014 CCA Emails SB, Hodes re developments. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 3/18/2014 CCA Emails Hodes re HB reqs. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 3/19/2014 CCA Emails S Hodes re DC appeal; FOIA re BW visiting logs. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 3/19/2014 CCA Draft HB DC Notice of Appeal. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 3/20/2014 CCA Drive to Fedex to file HB DC NOA. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0 0 3/26/2014 CCA Check HB DC court docket. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 4/12/2014 CCA Email S Hodes re trial status. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 4/12/2014 CCA Assemble and email L Millard re HB DC notice of appeal. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 4/23/2014 CCA Check HB DC COA docket. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 5/8/2014 CCA Check HB DC COA docket. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 5/19/2014 CCA Email S Hodes re EOUSA appeal. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 5/28/2014 CCA Emails S Hodes re EOUSA appeal. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0 0 6/24/2014 CCA Tcs JE office re HB DC appeal. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 6/24/2014 CCA Assemble exhibits, email JE office re HB DC appeal. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0 0 6/30/2014 SAH Phone call w/defendants' representatives and client regarding civil finding of responsive 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 records 8/4/2014 CCA Organize DC case files (to prepare to transmit to TL). 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75
8/6/2014 TEL Review/analyze FOIA Briefs/Filings and associated case authorities in DC federal court case 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 for possible procedural or other filing steps 8/7/2014 TEL Review/analyze FOIA Briefs/Filings and associated case authorities in DC federal court case 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 for possible procedural or other filing steps 8/8/2014 CCA Research DC Circuit docket. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 10/1/2014 TEL Consultation with client and FOIA counsel regarding 1.2 $350 $420.00 0.3 126 denial of request for Granger termination documents and administrative appeal; review FOIA letter regarding same 10/31/14 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: DDC case; research same 1 $200 $200.00 0.3 60 11/14/2014 CCA Emails re and review DC order. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 11/24/14 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: D.C. Circuit mandate; prepare motion to issue mandate 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 11/24/2014 TEL Edit and transmit motion for issuance of mandate instater in DC Circuit FOIA case; consultation with FOIA counsel 0.4 $350 $140.00 0.3 42 12/1/2014 TEL Consultation with client and FOIA counsel regarding litigation in DC DCT 0.8 $350 $280.00 0.3 84 12/3/2014 SAH Motion to expedite matter in appeals court 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 12/8/2014 TEL Consultation with client and FOIA counsel regarding litigation in DC DCT 0.4 $350 $140.00 0.3 42 12/10/2014 TEL Consultation with FOIA counsel regarding FOIA litigation; draft/revise pro hac vice filings 0.9 $350 $315.00 0.3 94.5 for DC DCT 12/12/2014 TEL Consultation with FOIA counsel regarding FOIA litigation; draft/revise pro hac vice filings 0.8 $350 $280.00 0.3 84 for DC DCT 12/15/14 HWA Prepare draft letter to DOJ re: voluntary production of documents 0.4 $200 $80.00 0.3 24 12/15/2014 SAH Filed Pro Hac Vice motions 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 12/23/14 HWA Teleconference with S. Hodes and T. Lewis re: strategy; follow-up teleconference with T. 2.25 $200 $450.00 0.3 135 Lewis re: same; prepare draft letter to AUSA re: next steps in DC FOIA case 12/23/2014 SAH Draft letter to AUSA regarding settlement 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 12/23/2014 TEL Consultation with co-counsel regarding discovery, FOIA and Touhy litigation in DC OCT; 0.8 $350 $280.00 0.3 84 draft/revise letter to government 12/24/2014 SAH Draft letter to AUSA regarding settlement 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 12/24/2014 TEL Consultation with co-counsel regarding discovery, FOIA and Touhy litigation in DC DCT; 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 draft/revise letter to government 12/31/2014 SAH Teleconference with AUSA regarding settlement and narrowing of litigation 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 12/31/2014 TEL Consultation with co-counsel and Special AUSA regarding discovery, FOIA and Touhy 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 litigation in district court; draft/revise possible search terms for
1/2/2015 TEL Consultation with client and counsel regarding discovery conference with DOJ in DC DCT 0.6 $350 $210.00 0.3 63 litigation 1/6/2015 CCA Emails TL re MPSB, FOIA. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 1/9/2015 TEL Consultation w/counsel regarding same and FOIA response from DOJ; consultation on next 1.1 $350 $385.00 0.3 115.5 steps regarding DC litigation 1/10/2015 TEL Draft/revise letter to AUSA handling DC FOIA case for disclosure of requested Granger file 0.3 $350 $105.00 0.3 31.5 1/15/2015 TEL Consultation with client and co-counsel regarding FOIA litigation possibilities; draft letter to 1.1 $350 $385.00 0.3 115.5 AUSA in DC DCT case regarding final proposal to narrow universe of documents 1/16/2015 TEL Consultation with AUSA(s) regarding FOIA litigation and digitization of 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 1/20/2015 CCA Review memo re framework of DC litigation. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 1/28/2015 TEL Consultation with co-counsel and AUSA regarding joint status report; draft/edit same 1.4 $350 $490.00 0.3 147 1/29/2015 TEL Consultation with AUSA regarding joint status report; draft/edit same 0.3 $350 $105.00 0.3 31.5 2/2/2015 TEL Consultation with AUSA regarding litigation / termination file 0.2 $350 $70.00 0.3 21 2/7/2015 CCA Draft detailed email TL re Granger timetable, Corrigan. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75 2/18/2015 SAH Draft/edit status report 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 2/18/2015 TEL Consultation with AUSA, client and other attorneys regarding status report, disclosure of 3.5 $350 $1225.00 0.3 367.5 Granger file, etc. in DC DCT; draft status report 2/19/2015 CCA Review draft JSR in DC, emails TL. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 2/20/2015 CCA Numerous emails TL re DC case. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75 2/24/2015 CCA Emails TL re 103/DC hearings. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 2/24/2015 CCA Research DC docket. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 2/25/2015 CCA Emails TL re DC case. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 3/1/15 HWA Research FOIA Exemption 6; prepare proposed agenda for meeting with E. Young 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 3/2/2015 TEL Research, review/analyze FOIA authorities for DC DCT Conference; 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 3/3/2015 TEL Preparation for DC DCT hearing; review/analyze FOIA case law; review/analyze FOIA 4 $350 $1400.00 0.3 420 requests; consultation with client and AUSA regarding 3/4/2015 CCA Tc TL re DC hrg. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 3/4/2015 CCA Research re DC hrg tx, email reporter. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 3/4/15 HWA Travel from GSP to DCA 2.5 $200 $500.00 0.3 150 3/4/2015 SAH Attend status conference 2 $300 $600.00 0.3 180 3/4/2015 TEL Preparation for DC DCT hearing; review/analyze FOIA case law; review/analyze FOIA 8 $350 $2800.00 0.3 840 requests; consultation with client and AUSA regarding same; attend and argue at hearing in DC DCT
3/5/15 HWA Travel from DCA to GSP; meet with T. Lewis re: strategy; attend court 6 $200 $1200.00 0.3 360 3/6/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: strategy 0.1 $200 $20.00 0.3 6 3/7/2015 TEL Review/analyze legal authority on FOIA standards 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 in preparation for litigation in DC DCT; review law on applicability of Brady 3/9/2015 TEL Consultation with client, co-counsel and AUSA regarding Vauhgn index and disclosure of 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 public and reasonably segregable records; research and draft letter regarding same 3/10/15 HWA Prepare draft letter to Young re: Vaughn index; review T. Lewis edits to same; numerous 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 emails to T. Lewis re: strategy 3/12/2015 TEL Review/analyze DC DCT transcript; consultation with co-counsel and client regarding same 1.3 $350 $455.00 0.3 136.5 3/13/15 HWA Study transcript and make notes re: same for use in connection with upcoming MSJ briefing 1 $200 $200.00 0.3 60 3/13/2015 SAH Prepare analysis of FOIA issues discussed at conference 2 $300 $600.00 0.3 180 3/13/2015 TEL Review/analyze DC DCT transcript in preparation for MSJ briefing; consultation with co-counsel 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 and client regarding same 3/16/2015 TEL Research, review/analyze FOIA case law for briefing in DC DCT; review/analyze 3.1 $350 $1085.00 0.3 325.5 government's Vaughn Index and associated filings; consultation with client regarding same 3/17/15 HWA Study Vaughn index and affidavit; participate in team conference call re: strategy; compose 1.1 $200 $220.00 0.3 66 email re: same 3/17/2015 SAH Prepare memo on FOIA issues for Motion for Summary Judgment 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 3/17/2015 TEL Research, review/analyze FOIA case law for briefing in DC DCT; review/analyze 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 government's Vaughn Index and associated filings; consultation with co-counsel and client regarding same 3/19/2015 CCA Research re and email TL re Corrigan letters. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 3/19/2015 TEL Research, review/analyze FOIA case law for briefing in DC DCT 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 3/20/2015 CCA Research Granger cases, download. 3.2 $75 $240.00 0.3 72 3/20/2015 CCA Emails TL re Corrigan. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 3/20/2015 TEL Research, review/analyze FOIA case law for briefing in DC DCT 1 $350 $350.00 0.3 105 3/23/2015 CCA Research, download, review selected Granger dockets. 3.5 $75 $262.50 0.3 78.75 3/23/2015 CCA Emails TL re various, including Granger litigation history. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 3/24/2015 CCA Review Granger files for relevance. 1.3 $75 $97.50 0.3 29.25 3/24/15 HWA Participate in multiple teleconferences with T. Lewis re: strategy; revise motion re: briefing 0.8 $200 $160.00 0.3 48 schedule
3/24/2015 SAH Prepare motion for consolidation 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 3/25/2015 SAH Prepare motion for consolidation 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 3/27/2015 CCA Review 3-6-15 103 hrg tx; scan process and email TL. 1.2 $75 $90.00 0.3 27 3/27/2015 CCA Review Granger cases. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 4/1/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis; work on brief 2.1 $200 $420.00 0.3 126 4/7/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: briefing strategy 0.2 $200 $40.00 0.3 12 4/9/2015 CCA Download additional Granger dockets; initial review against Vaughn Index language during 2 $75 $150.00 0.3 45 process. 4/12/15 HWA Research FOIA; continue working on MSJ brief; email T. Lewis re: same; review S. Hodes 5 $200 $1000.00 0.3 300 edits to brief 4/13/2015 TEL Review/analyze case law on FOIA — draft/edit arguments 1 $350 $350.00 0.3 105 4/14/15 HWA Continue research of FOIA and work on FOIA section of draft brief; teleconference with T. 4 $200 $800.00 0.3 240 Lewis 4/14/2015 TEL Review/analyze case law on FOIA — draft/edit arguments 1 $350 $350.00 0.3 105 4/15/15 HWA Research FOIA; proofread and revise draft brief 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 4/15/2015 TEL Review/analyze case law on FOIA — draft/edit arguments 1 $350 $350.00 0.3 105 4/16/2015 TEL Review/analyze case law on FOIA — draft/edit arguments 1.3 $350 $455.00 0.3 136.5 4/20/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 3.7 $350 $1295.00 0.3 388.5 4/21/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 4.5 $350 $1575.00 0.3 472.5 4/22/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 2.7 $350 $945.00 0.3 283.5 4/23/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 4/24/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis; research FOIA and finish draft argument section of brief re: 3 $200 $600.00 0.3 180 same 4/24/2015 TEL Draft/edit FOIA Argument Section 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 4/26/2015 CCA Research Granger files re Vaughn Index, list of attorneys to contact for TL. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 4/27/2015 CCA Research re and draft detailed memo TL re attorneys to call re Granger. 2.5 $75 $187.50 0.3 56.25 4/27/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 4/28/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 6.3 $350 $2205.00 0.3 661.5 4/29/15 HWA Prepare draft protective order; study case memos; revise FOIA brief 2.5 $200 $500.00 0.3 150 4/29/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs 6 $350 $2100.00 0.3 630 4/30/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: FOIA case; revise FOIA brief and review multiple emails 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 from T. Lewis 4/30/2015 TEL Draft/edit fact section for DC DCT consolidated briefs; consultation with Arnwine regarding 7 $350 $2450.00 0.3 735 same; review/analyze FOIA authorities; draft/edit FOIA argument 5/1/2015 TEL Review/analyze DOJ guidance documents on FOIA; draft/edit FOIA 4.9 $350 $1715.00 0.3 514.5
5/4/2015 CCA Emails TL re Granger case and attorney list. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 5/4/2015 CCA Download and review draft fact section, exhibits, MSJ. 2.6 $75 $195.00 0.3 58.5 5/4/2015 TEL Review/analyze DOJ guidance documents on FOIA; draft/edit FOIA 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 5/5/2015 CCA Draft email TL re MSJ, exhs. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 5/5/2015 TEL Review/analyze FOIA case law; draft/edit FOIA arguments for DC brief 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 5/9/15 HWA Study draft statement of facts for MSJ brief 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 5/9/2015 TEL Review/analyze FOIA case law; draft/edit DC DCT brief 7 $350 $2450.00 0.3 735 5/11/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; consultation with HWA regarding same; review/analze FOIA 4 $350 $1400.00 0.3 420 case law 5/12/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; consultation with HWA regarding same; review/analze FOIA 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 case law 5/13/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits 6.5 $350 $2275.00 0.3 682.5 5/14/2015 HPG Prepare Exhibits 2 $50 $100.00 0.3 30 5/14/15 HWA Study new draft statement of facts and make revisions to same 1.1 $200 $220.00 0.3 66 5/14/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits; review/analyze FOIA case law 6.5 $350 $2275.00 0.3 682.5 5/15/2015 CCA Review, annotate, revise statement of facts for MSJ; email TL. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75 5/15/2015 HPG Prepare Exhibits 2 $50 $100.00 0.3 30 5/15/15 HWA Study draft table re: contacts between CA and DOJ; revise same; research 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 5/15/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits 5.5 $350 $1925.00 0.3 577.5 5/18/2015 CCA Download, review, and organize files from TL for MSJ. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0.3 33.75 5/18/15 HWA Multiple teleconferences with T. Lewis re: FOIA strategy; revie and revise draft brief; 2.7 $200 $540.00 0.3 162 research FOIA; revise draft statement of material facts and proposed order 5/18/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits and additional filings for MSJ 5 $350 $1750.00 0.3 525 5/19/2015 SAH Draft/edit MSJ 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 5/19/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits and additional filings for MSJ 5 $350 $1750.00 0.3 525 5/20/15 HWA Multiple teleconferences with T. Lewis re: FOIA briefing strategy; prepare draft declaration; 1 $200 $200.00 0.3 60 perform spot research 5/20/2015 SAH Draft/edit MSJ 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 5/20/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits and additional filings for MSJ 5 $350 $1750.00 0.3 525 5/21/2015 CCA Close review MSJ, identify typos. 2 $75 $150.00 0.3 45 5/21/2015 CCA Draft emails TL re HB thoughts on MSJ (including necessary research). 1.7 $75 $127.50 0.3 38.25 5/21/15 HWA Respond to T. Lewis emails re: briefing strategy; consider waiver issue; review cases; 0.7 $200 $140.00 0.3 42 multiple teleconferences with T. Lewis 5/21/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits and additional filings for MSJ 6 $350 $2100.00 0.3 630 5/22/2015 HPG Prepare exhibits; formatting of final documents 7 $50 $350.00 0.3 105
5/22/15 HWA Respond to emails from T. Lewis; review draft statement of facts and table of exhibits 1 $200 $200.00 0.3 60 5/22/2015 SAH Draft/edit MSJ 2 $300 $600.00 0.3 180 5/22/2015 TEL Draft/revise DC DCT Brief; prepare exhibits and additional filings for MSJ 6 $350 $2100.00 0.3 630 5/24/15 HWA Revise draft final brief 0.7 $200 $140.00 0.3 42 5/25/15 HWA Review draft of brief and make comments re: same; draft proposed introduction 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 5/25/2015 TEL Final edits to brief and other MSJ documents 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 5/26/2015 HPG Prepare exhibits; formatting and filing of final documents 8 $50 $400.00 0.3 120 5/26/2015 SAH Filed MSJ 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 5/26/2015 TEL Final edits to brief and other MSJ documents 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 5/29/2015 SAH Filed supplemental documents in support of MSJ 0.3 $300 $90.00 0.3 27 7/15/2015 CCA Prepare Govt filings as unitary document for printing; PO docs. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 7/15/15 HWA Review DOJ filings re: MSJ 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 7/15/2015 TEL Review/analyze government response; consultation with co-counsel and client regarding 4.1 $350 $1435.00 0.3 430.5 same 7/16/2015 CCA Review Hodes thoughts on motion. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 7/16/2015 TEL Review/analyze government response; consultation with co-counsel and client regarding 3.1 $350 $1085.00 0.3 325.5 same 7/17/2015 CCA Review Govt Response to MSJ. Research re and annotate. 3 $75 $225.00 0.3 67.5 7/17/2015 TEL Review/analyze government response; consultation with co-counsel and client regarding 2.6 $350 $910.00 0.3 273 same 7/18/15 HWA Continue study of government MSJ materials; re-review opening MSJ materials; research 4.5 $200 $900.00 0.3 270 evidentiary objections; begin drafting reply brief 7/19/2015 CCA Review Govt Response to MSJ, 3/4/2015 hearing transcript Draft notes, emails TL. 3.5 $75 $262.50 0.3 78.75 7/19/15 HWA Continue work on MSJ reply brief, including re: Vaughn Index, b5, and segrability 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 7/21/2015 CCA Further review and research re Govt Response and related issues. 1 $75 $75.00 0.3 22.5 7/22/2015 CCA Research re and download all Ellen IIuvelle opinions re FOIA/DOJ. Email TL. Additional 2.7 $75 $202.50 0.3 60.75 research and notes re 3/4/2015 transcript. 7/24/15 HWA Continue work on MSJ reply; study cases that the DOJ cited 1 $200 $200.00 0.3 60 7/27/2015 CCA Review draft MSJ Reply. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 7/27/15 HWA Finish draft of reply for MSJ; proofread same 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 7/27/2015 SAH Draft/edit Reply Brief in support of MSJ 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 7/27/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; review/analyze case law and statutes 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 7/28/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 7/29/15 HWA Work on response to statement of facts; review S. Hodes brief edits 2.5 $200 $500.00 0.3 150 7/29/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation 3.3 $350 $1155.00 0.3 346.5
7/30/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; consultation with client regarding same 3.3 $350 $1155.00 0.3 346.5 7/31/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; consultation with client regarding same 4.3 $350 $1505.00 0.3 451.5 8/1/2015 CCA Review latest draft Reply Brief. Annotate and email TL. 1.3 $75 $97.50 0.3 29.25 8/1/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; consultation with client and co-counsel 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 regarding same 8/2/2015 CCA Review and emails TL re Reply Brief. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 8/2/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; consultation with client and co-counsel 5.7 $350 $1995.00 0.3 598.5 regarding same 8/3/2015 CCA Emails TL re Touhy, HB visit, Granger, Rappe. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 8/3/2015 CCA Process and emails TL re Exhibit A. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 8/3/2015 CCA Review re draft Reply, emails TL. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 8/3/15 HWA Review draft MSJ brief; comment on same 0.2 $200 $40.00 0.3 12 8/3/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; consultation with client and co-counsel 5.5 $350 $1925.00 0.3 577.5 regarding same 8/4/2015 CCA Proof final Reply, email TL. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75 8/4/2015 CCA Redact final Reply and revise as per TL. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 8/4/15 HWA Study final draft of MSJ and make last round of comments 0.3 $200 $60.00 0.3 18 8/4/2015 TEL Draft/edit Reply memorandum in DC litigation; consultation with client and co-counsel 6.5 $350 $2275.00 0.3 682.5 regarding same; file brief and associated documents 8/5/2015 CCA Review Granger court docs from Gailey as per TL. 1.8 $75 $135.00 0.3 40.5 8/7/2015 CCA Review Gailey Fed Dist docs. 1.4 $75 $105.00 0.3 31.5 8/9/2015 CCA Further review Gailey Fed Dist docs. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0.3 33.75 8/10/2015 CCA Emails TL re filings. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 8/10/2015 CCA Draft detailed email TL re Gailey Granger materials. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 8/12/2015 CCA Review detailed Gailey background report re Granger. 1 $75 $75.00 0.3 22.5 8/25/15 HWA Review and make comments to draft reply 0.7 $200 $140.00 0.3 42 9/20/2015 CCA Research DC docket. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 9/20/2015 CCA Research re DC 3-4-2015 transcript. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 10/7/2015 TEL Review/analyze Order from DC OCT regarding hearing and additional in camera review; 0.7 $350 $245.00 0.3 73.5 consultation with client and co-counsel regarding same 10/9/2015 TEL Consultation with AUSA regarding scheduling in DC OCT case; review proposed consent 1.3 $350 $455.00 0.3 136.5 motion and Order
10/21/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 1.1 $350 $385.00 0.3 115.5 DCT; consultation with client regarding same 10/22/15 HWA Study MSJ briefs and review cases to prepare oral argument outline 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 10/22/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 DCT; consultation with client regarding same 10/23/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 DCT; consultation with client regarding same 10/24/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 1.6 $350 $560.00 0.3 168 DCT; consultation with client regarding same 10/26/2015 CCA Research, tcs Granger defense attorneys. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 10/27/2015 CCA Research, tcs Granger defense attorneys. 1 $75 $75.00 0.3 22.5 10/27/2015 CCA Email TL re Granger attorneys. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 10/28/2015 CCA Draft email TL re Granger litigation. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 10/29/2015 CCA Research re DC reporter. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 10/29/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 2.6 $350 $910.00 0.3 273 OCT; consultation with client regarding same 10/31/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 DCT; consultation with client regarding same 11/2/2015 CCA Research re and tcs DC reporter; email TL. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 11/2/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 2.7 $350 $945.00 0.3 283.5 OCT; consultation with client regarding same 11/3/15 HWA Travel to DC 2.5 $200 $500.00 0.3 150 11/3/2015 TEL Draft/revise oral argument preparation; review prior briefing and record before the DC 6 $350 $2100.00 0.3 630 DCT; consultation with client regarding same 11/4/2015 CCA Revew, download, file DC minute order. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 11/4/15 HWA Prepare for oral argument with T. Lewis; attend oral argument; meet with T. Lewis re: post-argument 6.75 $200 $1350.00 0.3 405 argument strategy session; travel from DCA to GSP 11/4/2015 SAH Attend motions hearing 2 $300 $600.00 0.3 180 11/4/2015 TEL DC motions hearing; preparation and appearance (travel); consultation with co-counsel and 12 $350 $4200.00 0.3 1260 client regarding same 11/5/2015 SAH Prepare analysis of FOIA issues discussed at conference 0.3 $300 $90.00 0.3 27 11/5/2015 TEL Review/analyze DC Hearing Transcript; formulate action list going forward; consultation 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 with client and co-counsel 11/6/15 HWA Prepare draft motion to redact transcript; study transcript to mark proposed redactions; 1 $200 $200.00 0.3 60 multiple emails with T. Lewis
11/6/2015 TEL Review/analyze DC Hearing Transcript; formulate action list going forward; consultation 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 with client and co-counsel 11/9/15 HWA Re-read transcript to confirm appropriate redactions; prepare draft email to DOJ r: 0.4 $200 $80.00 0.3 24 preserving documents and fee petition; multiple emails with T. Lewis 11/10/15 HWA Draft proposed motion and order to continue fee petition deadline; email T. lewis re: 0.2 $200 $40.00 0.3 12 strategy vis-à-vis DOJ 11/16/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: FOIA strategy in light of gov't decision to withhold 0.1 $200 $20.00 0.3 6 documents 11/17/2015 CCA Review and print correspondence and docket re DC. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 11/17/2015 TEL Review/analyze DC DCT correspondence; consultation with opposing counsel; draft/file 1.9 $350 $665.00 0.3 199.5 motion to stay fee application; consultation with co-counsel regarding next steps in DC DCT 11/18/2015 CCA Download, file, process, review government production (DC). 4.5 $75 $337.50 0.3 101.25 11/18/2015 TEL Consultation with opposing counsel regarding rolling production in DC FOIA case; 2.1 $350 $735.00 0.3 220.5 Review/analyze DOJ FOIA production 11/19/2015 CCA Emails TL re Vaughn Index, Friedman in Govt Production. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 11/19/2015 TEL Review/analyze DOJ FOIA production; consultation with opposing counsel regarding same 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 same 11/20/2015 TEL Review/analyze DOJ FOIA production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding 0.8 $350 $280.00 0.3 84 same 11/23/2015 TEL Review/analyze DOJ FOIA production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding 1.7 $350 $595.00 0.3 178.5 same 11/23/2015 TEL Consultation with opposing counsel regarding consent to Vaughn and schedule for 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 objections to production 11/24/2015 TEL Review/analyze DOJ FOIA production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding 1.4 $350 $490.00 0.3 147 same 11/25/15 HWA Draft motion to modify schedule in DC litigation 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 11/25/2015 TEL Consultation with opposing counsel regarding consent to Vaughn and schedule for 0.3 $350 $105.00 0.3 31.5 objections to production 11/29/2015 CCA Review Govt production, create bookmarks, split into constituent 3 $75 $225.00 0.3 67.5 11/29/2015 CCA Emails TL re Govt production, duplicates, Granger signing for supervisor. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 11/29/15 HWA Draft objection to DOJ production; review numerous emails re: same 0.4 $200 $80.00 0.3 24 11/29/2015 TEL Draft consent motion & objections to DOJ production 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 11/30/2015 TEL Review/analyze EOUSA Motion for Clarification; consultation with client and co-counsel 0.8 $350 $280.00 0.3 84 regarding same
12/1/2015 CCA Download DC docket, entries. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 12/1/2015 CCA Emails TL re Morgan Index; GU. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 12/1/2015 CCA Revew Morgan Index. Research doc we have from 46 boxes. Identify other entries. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75 12/1/2015 SAH Draft/edit Motion for Clarification 1 $300 $300.00 0.3 90 12/1/2015 TEL Review/analyze government's Morgan index and motion for clarification 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 12/2/2015 CCA Research EDNY discovery re if Morgan document included. Email TL. 3 $75 $225.00 0.3 67.5 12/2/2015 CCA Research re defendant names from production. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 12/3/2015 TEL Review/analyze government's Morgan index and motion for clarification. 1 $350 $350.00 0.3 105 12/4/2015 CCA Draw up names of Granger case defendants for Gailey; email TL. 0.6 $75 $45.00 0.3 13.5 12/4/15 HWA Work on objection to gov't production / Morgan issue; research re: same 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 12/4/2015 TEL Draft/revise objections to EOUSA production 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 12/5/15 HWA Continue work on objection; teleconference with T. Lewis re: strategy; study publicly 4 $200 $800.00 0.3 240 released couments 12/5/2015 TEL Draft/revise objections to EOUSA production 0.7 $350 $245.00 0.3 73.5 12/6/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: briefing strategy; work on response to motion to clarify 1.1 $200 $220.00 0.3 66 12/7/15 HWA Finish drafting response to motion to clarify; draft shell declaration for C. Amwine 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 12/7/2015 TEL Draft/revise response to DOJ Motion to Clarify; draft/revise objections to EOUSA 1.8 $350 $630.00 0.3 189 production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding same 12/8/2015 CCA Identify Camillo-Montoya, GF docs in production that may in Morgan Index for decl, filing. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0.3 15.75 12/8/2015 CCA Draft decl for filing. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 12/8/2015 TEL Draft/revise response to DOJ Motion to Clarify; 3 $350 $1050.00 0.3 315 12/9/2015 CCA Edit Decl, Review Objection re Morgan filing and annotate for decl. Prepare exhs. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0.3 33.75 12/9/2015 CCA Email TL re Klampfer, Granger patterns; Decl. 0.6 $75 $45.00 0.3 13.5 12/9/15 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis re: DC litigation; review draft objection and make comments 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90 re: same; email with T. lewis; study Vaughn index, Morgan index, and accompanying declarations 12/9/2015 SAH Draft/edit objection to motion for clarification 0.4 $300 $120.00 0.3 36 Draft/revise response to DOJ Motion to Clarify; draft/revise objections to EOUSA 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 12/9/2015 TEL production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding same 12/10/2015 CCA Email TL re KC. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 12/10/2015 CCA Research DC docket items, download for HB. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 12/10/15 HWA Draft email to T. Lewis re: insert for Morgan objection 0.1 $200 $20.00 0.3 6
12/10/2015 TEL Draft/revise response to DOJ Motion to Clarify; draft/revise objections to EOUSA 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding same 12/11/2015 CCA Research re Granger cites in 103 txes. Email TL. 0.5 $75 $37.50 0.3 11.25 12/11/15 HWA Study draft objection and supporting materials; email T. Lewis re: suggested edits to same 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 12/11/2015 TEL Draft/revise response to DOJ Motion to Clarify; draft/revise objections to EOUSA 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding same 12/12/2015 TEL Draft/revise response to DOJ Motion to Clarify; draft/revise objections to EOUSA 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 production; consultation with client and co-counsel regarding same 12/14/2015 CCA Review and edit decl, confirm exhs. Emails TL. 1 $75 $75.00 0.3 22.5 12/14/15 HWA Multiple teleconferences and emails with T. Lewis re: DOJ's forthcoming motion for 0.3 $200 $60.00 0.3 18 protective order; propose revisions to Govt's draft consent 12/14/2015 TEL Final edits and filing of objections to DOJ Motion to Clarify and production 3.5 $350 $1225.00 0.3 367.5 12/15/2015 CCA Draft doc re DOJ production. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 12/16/2015 CCA Download, review filing re objections to Morgan, Vaughn. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 12/18/2015 CCA DC docket research. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 12/21/15 HWA Email T. Lewis re: Bloomgarden's thoughts on current briefing strategy 0.1 $200 $20.00 0.3 6 12/24/2015 CCA Revew Response to Protective Order in DC, prepare for HB. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 12/28/15 HWA Review DOJ reply brief and email T. Lewis re: same 0.1 $200 $20.00 0.3 6 1/4/2016 TEL Prepare for DC hearing; review/analyze prior DC DCT filings; consultation with client and 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 co-counsel regarding same 1/5/2016 SAH Attend status conference 2 $300 $600.00 0.3 180 1/5/2016 TEL Appear in DC for hearing (travel); preparation for same 10 $350 $3500.00 0.3 1050 1/6/2016 CCA Research DC case docket, Huvelle order. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 1/6/2016 CCA Initial review New DOJ production, emails TL. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0.3 33.75 1/6/16 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis; review multiple emails from T. Lewis; review draft motion 0.6 $200 $120.00 0.3 36 for Vaughn index 1/7/16 HWA Draft motion re: amend January 6 Order; review Gov't production; Study transcript of DC 0.5 $200 $100.00 0.3 30 hearing; email T. Lewis re: same 1/8/16 HWA Draft motion to seal USA brief and prepared redacted version of same 0.3 $200 $60.00 0.3 18 1/11/2016 CCA Download DOJ notice of compliance. Research re decls. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 1/11/2016 SAH Review EOUSA release of documents 0.5 $300 $150.00 0.3 45 1/12/2016 CCA Research re DOJ decls, notice or compliance. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 1/12/2016 CCA Research re and email TL re new DOJ production. Search re Klampfer, Ingalls, etc. 1 $75 $75.00 0.3 22.5 1/12/16 HWA Review newly released documents from DC 1.5 $200 $300.00 0.3 90
1/12/2016 TEL Review/analyze re-release of DOJ production; consultation with counsel and client 1.7 $350 $595.00 0.3 178.5 regarding same 1/19/2016 TEL Draft/revise Motion for Vaughn Index 2.2 $350 $770.00 0.3 231 1/20/2016 SAH Draft/edit Motion for Vaughn 0.3 $300 $90.00 0.3 27 1/20/2016 TEL Draft/revise Motion for Vaughn Index 1.1 $350 $385.00 0.3 115.5 1/22/2016 CCA Email Gailey re Granger hrg locates. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 1/23/2016 TEL Draft/revise Motion for Vaughn Index 2.3 $350 $805.00 0.3 241.5 1/25/2016 CCA Emails TL re Granger wits. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 1/25/2016 CCA Review draft Vaughn motion. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 1/25/16 HWA Review and make comments on revised motion for Vaughn index; correspond with T. Lewis 0.2 $200 $40.00 0.3 12 and S. Hodes re: same 1/25/2016 TEL Finalize draft and exhibits for Vaughn; consultation with 1.6 440.00 client and co-counsel 1.6 $350 $560.00 0.3 168 regarding same 1/26/2016 TEL Consultation with co-counsel regarding next steps in DC DCT case 0.7 $350 $245.00 0.3 73.5 2/5/2016 CCA Tcs EDNY clerk office; research re NARA. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 2/5/2016 CCA Research re Klampfer atty Borg. 0.2 $75 $15.00 0.3 4.5 2/5/16 HWA Study MSJ opinion and consider next steps re: same 0.2 $200 $40.00 0.3 12 2/5/2016 TEL Review/analyze DC opinion regarding 35-page letter under FOIA, consultation with co-counsel 1.5 $350 $525.00 0.3 157.5 and client regarding same 2/8/2016 CCA Research re DC docket, order, opinion. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 2/9/2016 CCA Tc NARA KC. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 2/9/2016 CCA Review Resp to Motion to Show Cause. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 2/9/2016 CCA Review New Govt production, break down. Create chart re differences in 4 $75 $300.00 0.3 90 2/11/16 HWA Draft motion to seal 0.1 $200 $20.00 0.3 6 2/12/2016 CCA Followup w NARA re Klampfer file. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 2/12/2016 CCA Draft detailed email TL re DOJ break down, incl review Govt Opp re Vaughn. 0.6 $75 $45.00 0.3 13.5 2/14/16 HWA Review motion for Vaughn index; draft reply in support of same 1.2 $200 $240.00 0.3 72 2/14/2016 TEL Draft/revise reply in support of Motion for Vaughn, consultation with co-counsel regarding 0.5 $350 $175.00 0.3 52.5 same 2/15/2016 CCA DC case: review Resp to OSC, Vaughn Reply. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0.3 6.75 2/15/2016 CCA Review new DOJ production, pull docs. Identify newly produced cases, docs. Email TL. 0.9 $75 $67.50 0.3 20.25 2/15/2016 CCA Email TL re HB on Vaughn Reply. 0.1 $75 $7.50 0.3 2.25 2/15/16 HWA Revise drafts of reply re: Vaughn and response to show cause 0.3 $200 $60.00 0.3 18
2/15/2016 TEL Draft/revise reply in support of Motion for Vaughn, consultation with co-counsel regarding 1.2 $350 $420.00 0.3 126 same 2/16/2016 CCA Pull Sternlicht Coop agreement; other research re new DOJ production. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0.3 9 2/16/2016 TEL Final edits and filing of reply in support of Motion for Vaughn, consultation with co-counsel 1.8 $350 $630.00 0.3 189 regarding same 2/17/2016 CCA Research re DC docket. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 2/17/2016 TEL Review/analyze DC Ct Order granting Motion for Vaughn, consultation with co-counsel 0.5 $350 $175.00 0 0 regarding same 3/3/2016 CCA Initial drafting of memo re defendants in similar position to HB re Granger from new 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 production. 3/3/2016 CCA Research re DOJ new production. Review, mark documents. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0 0 3/7/2016 CCA Research re New DOJ production, documents of interest. Emails TL. 1 $75 $75.00 0 0 3/8/2016 CCA Research re, pull docs, revise memo re DOJ new production; cases similar to HB and 3 $75 $225.00 0 0 codefendants similar to HB. 3/8/2016 CCA Draft email TL re memo re DOJ new production; cases similar to HB and codefendants 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 similar to HB. 4/5/2016 CCA Numerous emails EDNY court reporters re transcripts. Order Klampfer addl tx. (135.18) 0.2 $75 $15.00 0 0 4/5/2016 CCA Prepare and overnight mail Court Reporter re Klampfer as per HB. (USPS 22.95) 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 4/6/2016 CCA Download, process, review, Klampfer tx. 0.4 $75 $30.00 0 0 4/20/2016 CCA Download new Govt production re Vaughn index, process and file. 0.3 $75 $22.50 0 0 4/20/16 HWA Teleconference with T. Lewis; study new Vaughn index 0.7 $200 $140.00 0 0 4/21/2016 SAH Review EOUSA release of documents and revised Vaughn index 1.5 $300 $450.00 0 0 4/21/2016 TEL Review EOUSA release of documents and revised Vaughn index 3 $350 $1050.00 0 0 4/24/2016 CCA Review new Govt Vaughn production re proffer agreements, extract. 0.7 $75 $52.50 0 0 5/1/2016 CCA Review Vaughn Index/production, email TL. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0 0 5/2/2016 CCA Review Vaughn Index/production, email TL. 1.5 $75 $112.50 0 0 5/2/2016 TEL Consultation with client and co-counsel regarding DC DCT Vaughn index; review 2.5 $350 $875.00 0 0 government's Vaughn and segregability disclosures; prepare notice of contested withholdings 5/3/2016 TEL Review government's Vaughn and segregability disclosures; prepare notice of contested 1.3 $350 $455.00 0 0 withholdings 5/5/2016 TEL Review government's Vaughn and segregability disclosures; prepare notice of contested 2.1 $350 $735.00 0 0 withholdings
5/6/2016 TEL Review government's Vaughn and segregability 1.4 $350 $490.00 0 0 disclosures; prepare notice of contested withholdings; file same 6/2/16 HWA Prepare motion to seal; prepare draft MSJ order 0.4 $200 $80.00 0 0 6/8/2016 SAH Compile time table for application for attorney's fees and sanctions 1.5 $300 $450.00 0.3 135 6/18/16 HWA Research fee awards; begin drafting brief re: motion for fees 3 $200 $600.00 0.3 180 6/28/2016 TEL Compile time table for application for attorney's fees and sanctions 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 7/5/2016 TEL Compile time table for application for attorney's fees and sanctions 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 7/6/2016 TEL Compile time table for application for attorney's fees and sanctions 2 $350 $700.00 0.3 210 HWA Reply Brief 4 $200 $800.00 0.3 240 TEL Reply Brief 2.5 $350 $875.00 0.3 262.5 __________________ TOTAL $43,617.00 Fees $43,617.00 Costs +$1,901.23 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total $45,518.23
