Court Opinion

ID: 9466656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:22:11.778908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:51.237251
License: Public Domain

*51WILLIAM E. DOYLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the conclusion that the portions of the documents released to the ap-pellee which were deleted are exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5).
I disagree with the majority’s summary reversal of the award of attorney’s fees and costs. This is based on the conclusion that the appellee had not “substantially prevailed.”
There is a public purpose for the Congressional inclusion of an allowance of attorney’s fees under the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(3)(B), and although the Act is relatively recent, there is already ample authority requiring the trial courts to consider and weigh a number of factors in awarding attorney’s fees to “substantially prevailing” parties. These include:
a. The benefit which the public might derive from the case.
b. The nature of the interest of the plaintiff in the materials sought.
c. The reasonableness of the agency’s withholding of the materials.
d. The pecuniary benefit and commercial interest of the plaintiff in the materials sought.
e. The necessity of and causative effect of the filing of suit to obtain the materials.
f. Any other relevant factors which might effectuate the legislative intent to maximize public access to government information and to facilitate public access to the courts to enforce statutory rights.
Nationwide Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704 (D.C.Cir.1977); Chamberlain v. Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1979); Polynesian Cultural Center, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 600 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1979).
Our decision is rendered without regard to the governing criteria. I would prefer to approve the modest award in the interests of promoting the public interest.