Administrative Law - Government Agency Withholding Information, Reimbursing Attorney Fees - Davy V. Central Intelligence Agency

By Heyman, Brett E. | Suffolk University Law Review, Spring 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Administrative Law - Government Agency Withholding Information, Reimbursing Attorney Fees - Davy V. Central Intelligence Agency


Heyman, Brett E., Suffolk University Law Review


Administrative Law--Government Agency Withholding Information, Reimbursing Attorney Fees--Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966 to allow private citizens wide access to government information protected by federal agencies. (1) In an effort to enable greater public access to government documents, Congress amended FOIA in 1974 to include a provision awarding attorneys' fees to any individual who substantially prevails in an action requesting agency information. (2) In Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, (3) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered whether an author who publishes a book based, in part, on information obtained from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in partial satisfaction of his request under FOIA is entitled to attorneys' fees. (4) The majority awarded the author attorneys' fees because he substantially prevailed in the earlier litigation, his interest in the information sought served a public benefit, he was not motivated entirely by commercial interests, and the CIA did not present a reasonable basis to deny disclosure of the information. (5)

On December 13, 1993, author and researcher William Davy, Jr. filed a FOIA request with the CIA seeking certain records pertaining to President John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s assassination. (6) Six years later, the CIA denied Davy's request. (7) Davy subsequently sued the CIA for its failure to produce the documents, although the CIA dismissed the complaint because the statute of limitations had expired. (8) Davy filed a second FOIA request with the CIA, which resulted in a joint stipulation for the production of responsive documents. (9) After producing only some of Davy's requested documents, the CIA successfully moved for summary judgment. (10) Davy then moved for attorneys' fees under [section] 552(a)(4)(E) of FOIA, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the case, determining that Davy was eligible to receive attorneys' fees because he substantially prevailed in the district court action. (11) On remand, the district court denied Davy's request for attorneys' fees reasoning that the nature of Davy's claim was purely commercial and the CIA had a reasonable basis to deny production of the documents. (12)

Davy appealed the district court's ruling to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. (13) The court of appeals reversed and held that Davy was entitled to attorneys' fees. (14) Using the four-prong FOIA test, the court first determined that the district court correctly weighed the "public benefit" factor in Davy's favor. (15) The court then decided that the district court had abused its discretion in determining that the second and third prongs weighed in the CIA's favor. (16) Finally, the court of appeals concluded that the district court erred in favoring the CIA under the fourth prong. (17) Weighing all the factors, the court of appeals reversed the district court's ruling and held that Davy was entitled to attorneys' fees. (18)

In 1974, Congress amended FOIA to include an attorneys' fees provision under a belief that such fees play a crucial role in promoting a strong national policy favoring an accessible government. (19) Under [section] 552(a)(4)(E)(i) of FOIA, "[t]he court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs ... in any case ... in which the complainant has substantially prevailed." (20) For a plaintiff seeking disclosure of government agency records to "substantially prevail," courts require that the litigation merely result in agency disclosure of the requested documents. (21) Aside from a situation where a court rules in favor of the requester on the merits of the case, this disclosure may also result from either a court order or the agency voluntarily providing the information before the close of litigation.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Administrative Law - Government Agency Withholding Information, Reimbursing Attorney Fees - Davy V. Central Intelligence Agency
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?