§Why CasetextPricing

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Attorney Fees

31 Cited authorities

  1. Perdue v. Kenny A.

    559 U.S. 542 (2010)   Cited 2,472 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"

  2. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee

    489 U.S. 749 (1989)   Cited 1,918 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"

  3. Copeland v. Marshall

    641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 1,022 times
    Holding that "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"

  4. Lindy Bros. Bldrs., Phila. v. Am. R. S. San

    487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973)   Cited 875 times
    Finding "value of an attorney's time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate"

  5. National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense

    675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982)   Cited 524 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"

  6. Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency

    550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that fourth factor weighed against agency where agency took more than one year to process documents and provided no legal basis in response to a second FOIA request

  7. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec.

    811 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 76 times
    Finding litigation prompted production where agency did not claim to have conducted substantive searches for responsive documents prior to the lawsuit

  8. Salazar v. District of Columbia

    123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000)   Cited 104 times
    Finding that the LSI Laffey Matrix "more accurately reflects the prevailing rates for legal services in the D.C. community"

  9. Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

    965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 126 times
    Finding the plaintiff a "representative of the news media" because the plaintiff published a weekly magazine which included summaries of recent federal-court tax decisions, provided full texts of federal-court tax decisions on microfiche, and published a daily electronic data base which included summaries and full texts of federal-court tax decisions

  10. DL v. District of Columbia

    256 F.R.D. 239 (D.D.C. 2009)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that the fee petitioner's request to recover $287,146 in fees and expenses for discovery negotiations, a motion to compel arising out of a “garden variety” discovery dispute, and a fee petition was unreasonable on its face and, thus, warranted a review of the time records with “a more demanding eye”

  11. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,171 times   556 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party