Opinion ID: 186823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicable Standard of Review and DOC's Principal Claims on Appeal

Text: 23 We review the District Court's fee entitlement determination for abuse of discretion, Davy, 456 F.3d at 167, deferring to that court's intimate[] associat[ion] with the case and continuing relationship with the parties throughout the suit, Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704, 706, 716 (D.C.Cir.1977); see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933 ([T]he district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award. This is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.). 24 In this case, DOC does not contend that Judicial Watch is ineligible for fees under FOIA. Nor does DOC contest the District Court's analysis of the four factors that are weighed to determine whether a prevailing party is entitled to fees. See Davy, 456 F.3d at 166-67. Rather, DOC raises three objections premised on its contention that Judicial Watch should not have been awarded fees for discovery efforts undertaken after December 22, 1998. First, DOC argues that since the post-1998 discovery produced no tangible benefits for Judicial Watch, no fees should be awarded for any time spent in discovery after December 22, 1998. Second, DOC argues that much of the post-1998 discovery addressed matters that were collateral to Judicial Watch's FOIA request and therefore should not have been counted in the determination of fees. In other words, DOC suggests that Judicial Watch engaged in a fishing expedition in conducting discovery pursuant to the District Court's December 1998 order. Appellant's Br. at 10, 17. Finally, DOC argues that the District Court abused its discretion in awarding fees incurred in connection with litigation disputes that Judicial Watch pursued with third parties over whom DOC had no control and with respect to issues that had not been raised or pursued by DOC. In DOC's view, [t]he government and the American taxpayers should not be obligated to pay Judicial Watch's fees incurred to explore avenues that had nothing to do with the FOIA requests at issue and to respond to a party other than the government. Id. at 22. 25 DOC's three claims are obviously related. Indeed, the first claim subsumes the second and third claims, and the fishing expedition claim overlaps with DOC's challenge to the fees incurred in connection with third-party disputes. Each claim raises slightly different considerations, however. We will therefore address each claim separately in assessing the merits of DOC's appeal.