UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON , Plaintiff,

v. U NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. Case No. 1:11

- cv - 00374 (CRC)

OPINION AND ORDER A year ago today , the Court issued an Order awarding plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) $35,018 in attorneys’ fees and costs as t he prevailing party in this action under the Freedom of Information Act ( “ FOIA ” ) , 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i)

. Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U .S. Dep ’ t of Justice , 80 F. Supp. 3d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2015)

. The fee award was calculated in part by applying an hourly billing rate from the “LSI

adjusted Laffey matrix ”

— a version of the rate table that judges in this district frequently use to calculate prevailing hourly rates for “complex federal litigation” serv ices, as adjusted for inflatio n using an index o f prices for legal services nationwide

. The Department of Justice appealed the Court’s Order , arguing, as it did here , that CREW had not met its burden to establish that LSI

adjusted Laffey rat es reflected prevailing market rates for FOIA litigation in Washington, D.C

. The government believes the version of the Laffey matrix maintained by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Distr ict of Columbia (“USAO Laffey ”)

— which adjusts for inflation based on the general Consumer Price I ndex for the Washington area

— better reflects applicable market rates. While the government’s appeal was pending, the D.C. Circuit decided Eley v. Distr ict of Columbia , 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) . The Circuit held that the district court in that case hada bused its discr etion by using the LSI

- adjusted Laffey matrix to calculate a fee award in a case brought under the I n dividuals with Disabilities Education Act ( “ IDEA ” ) , 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)

. Given that holding’s relevance to the Court’ s calculation of the award here, the parties jointly moved the court of appeals to remand the case . O n remand, the Court directed
CREW to “ submit further evidence and briefing consistent with the [D.C.] Circuit ’ s opinion in Eley

. ” Minute Order, September 17, 2015. After both parties submitted supplemental material, the
D.C. Circuit decided Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia , 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015) , in which it approved the use of LSI

- adjusted L affey rates in a Medicaid class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Resolution of this case thus requires the Court to apply the principles announced
in both Eley and Salazar to it s prior award of fees in this case

. In the end, the task is

s traightforward

. The D.C. Circuit overturned the fee award in Eley because the dist rict court erroneously “reliev[ed] [the plaintiff] of her burden” “of ‘jus t ifying the reasonableness of the rates.’” Eley , 793 F.3d at 104

– 05 ( quoting Covington v. District of Columbia , 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1995) )

. The source of the error , in the panel’s v iew, was that the plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish that
LSI

- adjusted Laffey rates “ ‘ are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services , ’ i.e., IDEA litigation. ” Id. at 104 (quoting Covington , 57 F.3d at 1109)

. In fact, a s the Salazar panel expl ained, the government’s evidence in Eley showed that “in the particular context of IDEA claims, there is a submarket in which attorneys’ hourly fees are generally lower than the rates in either of the Laffey matrices.” Salazar , 809 F.3d at 64

. In Salazar , by cont rast, the government “identifie[d] no such submark et , instead acquiescing in the notion that the litigation at issue qualifie[d] as complex federal litigation (as to which the Laffey Matrices apply). ” Id. The same is
true here. The government does not contend that FOIA litigation generally (or the particular litigation in this case) is not “complex , ” such that neither Laffey matrix should apply. Its only
2objection to C REW ’ s fee award is that the LSI

- adjusted rates are above market

. But as was the case
in Salazar , the affidavits, billing

- rate surveys , an d prior district

- court orders that CREW has offered to support the reasonableness of LSI

- adjusted rates in “complex federal litigation” are sufficient to meet its evidentiary burden. The Court may therefore properly rely on LSI

- adjusted Laffey rates in calculating its award. A final thought from the Court’s earlier opinion bears repeating. In deciding fee requests,

c ourt s are obligated to assess whether the requested fees are consistent with those that would be paid to “lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation” performing “similar services.” The LSI

- based fees requested by CREW’s attorneys for their succe ssful litigation of this

case

— reduced by 15% for the reasons stated in the Court’s prior opinion

— meet that standard. But that is not to say that all FOIA litigation is “complex” (whatever that means) or t hat all FOIA litigators have comparable experti se and reputation s to the attorneys h andling this case. So w hile billing

- rates matrices play an important role in the efficient administration of a l odestar award system , they cannot substitute for c ourts ’ independent judgment of the reasonableness of requested fees in each particular cas e . Accordingly, the Court fully adopts the reasoning of i t s Memorand um Opinion of February 11, 2015. In addition to the $35,018 in attorney s ’ fees and costs it awarded in its initial Order, the Court will award CREW attorney s ’ fees in the amount of $ 5 , 364.35 ( $ 6 ,311 * 0 .85) for the

c ontinued litigation of their fee petition . Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that [59] Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility an d Ethics in Washington’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED

. It is further O RDER ED that Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibil ity and Ethics in Washington is awarded a total of $ 40 , 382.35 in attorney s ’ fees and costs

.

3This is a final, appealable order. SO ORDERED

.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge
Date: February 11, 2016

4