CREW v. DHS: Regarding Border Fence: 1/29/10 - CREW's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and...

8/7/2019 CREW v. DHS: Regarding Border Fence: 1/29/10 - CREW's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Docu

1/22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ))Plaintiff, )

)v. )C.A. No. 08-1046 (JDB)

)DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

)Defendant. )

)

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OFATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E)(i), plaintiff Citizens

for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) respectfully moves for an award

of attorneys fees and costs reasonably concurred in its pursuit of this action. CREW

submits the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, with attached

declarations, in support of this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David L. SobelDAVID L. SOBEL, D.C. Bar No. 360418

1818 N Street, N.W.Suite 410

Washington, DC 20036(202) 246-6180

ANNE L. WEISMANN, D.C. Bar No. 298190

MELANIE SLOAN, D.C. Bar No. 434584Citizens for Responsibility and

Ethics in Washington1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450

Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 408-5565

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 1


2/22





)v. )C.A. No. 08-1046 (JDB)


)Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTIONFOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

respectfully submits this memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion

for an award of attorneys fees and costs against defendant Department of Homeland

Security (DHS). Pursuant to the Courts Orders dated December 7, 2009 (Docket No.

47), and December 18, 2009 (Docket No. 48), the parties conferred and attempted to

reach agreement on attorneys fee issues. Although defendant DHS will not contest

plaintiffs eligibility or entitlement to attorneys fees, the parties have been unable to

reach an agreement because the agency contests the reasonableness of the amount of

fees requested. Defendants Status Report (Docket No. 49) at 1.

Background

In this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552,

CREW sought the disclosure of records concerning allegations that defendant DHS and

its component, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), engaged in improper

political favoritism when CBP made decisions concerning the location of the U.S.-

Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 8


3/22

2

Mexico border fence and the property owners who would be adversely impacted by the

construction project. Following briefing and the Courtsin camera inspection of the

disputed records, by memorandum opinion and order dated September 1, 2009, the Court

granted in part and denied in part the parties cross-motions for summary judgment. See

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. Dept of Homeland Sec., 648 F. Supp. 2d 152

(D.D.C. 2009). Specifically, the Court ordered defendant DHS to release to CREW

certain information previously withheld by CBP, and with respect to the Exemption 5

claims in Document Nos. 1, 9 and 27 and relevant attachments within Document Nos. 22

and 24, the Court directed that defendant must file a supplemental Vaughn submission,

along with a memorandum in support of its exemption claims, by not later than October

2, 2009 or the Court will treat these remaining exemption claims as conceded and order

that the withheld material be released. Order of September 1, 2009 (Docket No. 36) at

2.

On October 2, 2009, defendant filed a consent motion requesting a 30-day stay of

the Courts Order of September 1, 2009 (Docket No. 37). By minute order dated October

5, 2009, the Court granted defendants motion and stayed defendants deadline for filing

a supplemental Vaughn submission, along with a memorandum in support of its

exemption claims, until November 2, 2009.

On November 2, 2009, defendant DHS filed a notice of appeal of the Courts

September 1 Order (Docket No. 38) and moved to stay the Order pending appeal (Docket

No. 39). CREW opposed the motion to the extent that defendant sought to delay the

filing of a supplemental Vaughn submission. By Order issued on November 5, 2009

(Docket No. 42), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants stay motion and



4/22

3

ordered the agency to file its supplemental Vaughn index and supporting memorandum

by not later than November 27, 2009, and to file a report on the status of its appeal by

that date, as well. Id. at 3.

On November 25, 2009, defendant DHS released to CREW the records ordered

disclosed by the Courts September 1 Order, as well as the records for which the Court

directed the filing of a supplemental Vaughn submission. See Defendants Notice of

Compliance with Courts September 1, 2009 Disclosure Order (Docket No. 44). On

November 27, 2009, the agency represented to the Court that it expects to file a motion

to dismiss [its pending] appeal on or before . . . December 4, 2009. Id. at 3. The court

of appeals did, in fact, dismiss the agencys appeal on that date (Docket No. 45).

Argument

I. CREW Should be Awarded Compensation for Time Reasonably

Devoted to Achieving a Successful Result in this Litigation

The FOIA provides, in pertinent part, that [t]he court may assess against the

United States reasonable attorneys fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in

any case under [the Act] in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. 5 U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(E)(i). A FOIA plaintiff who has substantially prevailed in the litigation

over disputed documents is deemed to be eligible for an award of fees and costs, and is

deemed to be entitled to an award if, inter alia, the public interest in disclosure of the

released information outweighs any private commercial interests the requester might

have in disclosure. Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155, 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, for

instance, a fee award would generally be appropriate for a public interest group seeking

information to further a project benefitting the general public. Id. (citation omitted).



5/22

4

Here, defendant DHS does not contest plaintiffs eligibility or entitlement to

attorneys fees, Defendants Status Report (Docket No. 49) at 1, so the Court need not

adjudicate those issues. Once a plaintiff is deemed eligible and entitled, the court

focuses on the proper amount of the fee award. Summers v. Dept of Justice, 477 F.

Supp. 2d 56, 63 (D.D.C. 2007). The Court determines an appropriate award by

employing the usual method of calculating reasonable attorneys fees [by] multiply[ing]

the hours reasonably expended in the litigation by a reasonable hourly fee, producing the

lodestar amount. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 562 F. Supp. 2d 159,

175 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

In Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 (1984), the Supreme Court held that public

interest attorneys may be awarded fees according to the prevailing market rates in the

community. To ascertain appropriate rates in this jurisdiction, use of the broadLaffey

matrix may be by default the most accurate evidence of a reasonable hourly rate.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. EPA, 421 F. Supp. 2d 123, 129

(D.D.C. 2006).1 The Laffey matrix designation of appropriate hourly fees is periodically

updated by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; the most current

version is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

While a fee applicant has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of its fee

request, that burden is met when supporting documentation is of sufficient detail and

probative value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such

hours were actually and reasonably expended, Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee,

1 The Laffey matrix is a schedule of charges based on [particular attorneys] years ofexperience developed in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F.Supp. 354 (D.D.C.1983). Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 562 F. Supp. 2d at 175.



6/22

5

353 F.3d 962, 970 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see

also American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 72 F.3d 907, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (petitioner

must submit sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work

done) (citation omitted).

Here, CREW is submitting in support of its request declarations detailing the

number of hours counsel devoted to discrete tasks performed at specific stages of the

litigation, based upon counsels contemporaneous time notations. See Declaration of

David L. Sobel (Sobel Decl.); Declaration of Anne L. Weismann (Weismann Decl.);

and Declaration of Melanie Sloan (Sloan Decl.) (filed herewith) While broken down

into eleven categories, these tasks fall within three broad phases of the case:

1. Case initiation and early tasks. Included in this phase are hours devoted to

drafting and filing the complaint. CREW notes that while the case eventually was

bifurcated by agreement of the parties in order to separately litigate the two distinct parts

of CREWs FOIA request, see Docket No. 8, the work performed to initiate the case

clearly was reasonable and necessary in order to substantially prevail on the claims

CREW advanced in Part I of the case.2 The early tasks also include negotiation with

opposing counsel in order to refine the scope of Part I of CREWs FOIA request, and to

reach an agreement with respect to the bifurcation of the litigation. These tasks expedited

the ultimate release of the information CREW sought through Part I of its request. See,

2 Should CREW prevail in subsequent litigation of Part II of the case, it acknowledgesthat it would not be entitled to double compensation for any work (such as preparationof the complaint) for which it is compensated through this petition.



7/22

6

e.g., Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Plainly, there is value to

obtaining something earlier than one otherwise would.) (FOIA fee case).3

2. Litigation of the merits. CREW seeks compensation for work performed by

counsel reviewing the agencys Vaughn submission and partially redacted responsive

documents; preparing CREWs opposition to defendants summary judgment and

CREWs cross-motion; reviewing the agencys reply memorandum; and researching and

drafting CREWs final brief.

3. Post-judgment tasks. Included in this phase is time spent reviewing the

Courts memorandum opinion and order of September 1, 2009; consultation, research and

drafting related to defendants motions for stays of the Courts disclosure order; and

review of the records eventually disclosed by defendant to ensure compliance with the

Courts order. CREW notes that defendants motion for a stay pending appeal (Docket

No. 39) sought an open-ended delay of the agencys obligation to file a supplemental

Vaughn submission, along with a memorandum in support of its exemption claims with

respect to several withheld records. Upon CREWs opposition, the Court denied that

requested relief, noting that it was not persuaded that it should indefinitely delay

consideration of [defendants] still-pending summary judgment motion. Order of

November 5, 2009 (Docket No. 42), at 2. Defendant DHS subsequently released the

disputed records. Again, this work contributed to a more timely disclosure of contested

material than might otherwise have occurred. SeeEdmonds, 417 F.3d at 1324.

3 It is beyond dispute that the bifurcation of the case resulted in the disclosure ofpreviously withheld information earlier than if CREW had to await litigation of bothparts of its request. Defendant DHS will not even complete processing of materialresponsive to Part II of the request until June 20, 2010. See Docket No. 48.



8/22

7

A. Rates and Hours that Form the Basis for CREWs Request

As is set forth in the accompanying declarations of counsel, both Mr. Sobel and

Ms. Weismann have been practicing law for more than 25 years, Sobel Decl., 2;

Weismann Decl., 2, and Ms. Sloan has been practicing law for more than 18 years,

Sloan Decl., 2. As such, under rates established in theLaffey matrix, Mr. Sobel and

Ms. Weismann are entitled to compensation at an hourly rate of $465, and Ms. Sloan is

entitled to a rate of $410. Exhibit A. Applying those rates to the hours detailed in the

declarations of counsel, CREW is entitled to an award of attorneys fees based upon a

lodestar amount of $40,877 as follows:

Attorney Hours Rate Lodestar

David L. Sobel 73.0 465 33,945

Anne L. Weismann 10.5 465 4,882

Melanie Sloan 5.0 410 2,050

Total Lodestar - Merits 40,877

In addition, CREW seeks compensation for time devoted to the preparation of this

motion, see Sobel Decl., 7; Weismann Decl., 7; Sloan Decl., 4, in the amount of

$5,087, as follows:

Attorney Hours Rate Lodestar

David L. Sobel 8.5 465 3,952

Anne L. Weismann 2.0 465 930Melanie Sloan 0.5 410 205

Total Lodestar - Fees 5,087



9/22

8

As detailed above, CREW seeks a total award of attorneys fees in the amount of

$45,964 for time reasonably expended by counsel in litigating the merits of Part I of this

case and in the preparation of this motion.4 In addition, CREW seeks reimbursement of

costs reasonably incurred in the amount of $350, which is limited to the filing fee CREW

paid to the Court upon the initiation of this action, Sobel Decl., 8.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and order defendant

DHS to pay CREW attorneys fees in the amount of $45,964 and costs in the amount of

$350.

Respectfully submitted,/s/ David L. SobelDAVID L. SOBEL, D.C. Bar No. 3604181818 N Street, N.W.Suite 410Washington, DC 20036(202) 246-6180ANNE L. WEISMANN, D.C. Bar No. 298190MELANIE SLOAN, D.C. Bar No. 434584Citizens for Responsibility and

Ethics in Washington1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 408-5565

Counsel for Plaintiff

4 CREW intends to supplement its request for attorneys fees to account for additionaltime spent in the preparation of its reply in support of this motion.



10/22

EXHIBIT A

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

Dept of Homeland Security, C.A. No. 08-1046

Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs



11/22

Last Updated on07/01/2009

LAFFEY MATRIX 2003-2010

(2009-10 rates are unchanged from 2008-09 rates)

Years (Rate for June 1 - May 31, based on prior year's CPI-U)

Experience

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

07-08

08-09

09-10

20+ years

380

390

405

425

440

465

465

11-19 years

335

345

360

375

390

410

410

8-10 years

270

280

290

305

315

330

330

4-7 years

220

225

235

245

255

270

270

1-3 years

180

185

195

205

215

225

225

Paralegals &

Law Clerks

105

110

115

120

125

130

130

Years

Explanatory Notes

1. This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks hasbeen prepared by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.The matrix is intended to be used in cases in which a "fee-shifting" statute permits the prevailing partyto recover "reasonable" attorney's fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 CivilRights Act); 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. 2412 (b) (EqualAccess to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited bystatute. See 28 U.S.C. 2412(d).

2. This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed by the District Court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines,Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C.Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985). It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal

judges in the District of Columbia as the "Laffey Matrix" or the "United States Attorney's Office Matrix."The column headed "Experience" refers to the years following the attorney's graduation from lawschool. The various "brackets" are intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3 years after lawschool graduation), "senior associates" (4-7 years), "experienced federal court litigators" (8-10 and 11-19 years), and "very experienced federal court litigators" (20 years or more). See Laffey, 572 F. Supp.at 371.

3. The hourly rates approved by the District Court in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82.The Matrix begins with those rates. See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74(paralegal and law clerk rate). The rates for subsequent yearly periods were determined by adding thechange in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, andthen rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple of $5). The result issubject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate and thelower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV,as announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for May of each year.

4. Use of an updated Laffey Matrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Save OurCumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of

Appeals subsequently stated that parties may rely on the updated Laffey Matrix prepared by theUnited States Attorney's Office as evidence of prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in theWashington, D.C. area. See Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1105 & n. 14, 1109(D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115 (1996). Lower federal courts in the District of Columbiahave used this updated Laffey Matrix when determining whether fee awards under fee-shifting statutesare reasonable. See, e.g., Blackman v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 1999);Jefferson v. Milvets System Technology, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 1997); Ralph Hoar &Associates v. Nat'l Highway Transportation Safety Admin., 985 F. Supp. 1, 9-10 n.3 (D.D.C. 1997);Martini v. Fed. Nat'l Mtg Ass'n, 977 F. Supp. 482, 485 n.2 (D.D.C. 1997); Park v. Howard University,881 F. Supp. 653, 654 (D.D.C. 1995).

Department of Justice USAGov USA Privacy Policy PSN PSN Grants www.regulations.gov Legal Policies and Disclaimers DOJ/Kids

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/http://www.usdoj.gov/legalpolicies.htmhttp://www.regulations.gov/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/psn.htmlhttp://www.psn.gov/http://www.usdoj.gov/privacy-file.htmhttp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/http://www.firstgov.gov/http://www.usdoj.gov/http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/site_map/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Links/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Contact_Us/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Espanol/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Employment/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Press_Releases/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Partnerships/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Victim_Witness_Assistance/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Programs_For_Youth/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Community_Prosecution/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/Divisions/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/About_Us/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/index.htmlhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/search.html


12/22





)v. )C.A. No. 08-1046 (JDB)


)Defendant. )

)

DECLARATION OF DAVID L. SOBELDavid L. Sobel hereby deposes and states:

1. I am co-counsel for plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) in the above-captioned action and submit this declaration in support of CREWs

motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs.

2. I have been an active member of the bar and practicing law since May 1980. For the

past 25 years, I have represented a wide variety of non-profit, public interest organizations in

litigation under the Freedom of Information Act in this and other federal courts.

3. I represented CREW in this matter on a partially contingent, flat fee basis. As such, I

did not prepare bills or invoices for CREW reflecting the hours I devoted to the case on a

monthly (or other periodic) basis. Rather, CREW agreed to pay me flat fees for specific stages

of the litigation (e.g., drafting and filing the complaint, briefing dispositive motions, etc.), and it

was understood that those fees were below market and did not reflect the market rates for my

work to which I would be entitled if CREW prevailed in this matter and petitioned the Court for

an award of reasonable attorneys fees.



13/22

2

4. While I did not submit periodic bills or invoices to CREW based upon an itemization

of my time devoted to specific tasks, I did maintain a running tally of time devoted to each

discrete stage of the litigation. This tally was compiled on a computer file which I updated as

additional time was devoted to the case. Thus, for example, when I began work on a specific

task, I would create an entry describing the work (e.g., drafting complaint) and then enter the

time devoted to that task (e.g., 2.5 hours). When I completed the next segment of time devoted

to the task, I updated the tally accordingly (e.g., an additional two hours of work would raise the

tally to 4.5 hours). In compiling my hours, I endeavored to be conservative and to ensure that

unproductive time was not included in the tally. In furtherance of that objective, my practice was

to record my time in 30 minute increments and to round down to the lower increment. For

instance, if I worked for two hours and twenty minutes on a particular task, I would round

down to two hours and add that amount of time to my tally.

5. In preparation of this declaration, I reviewed both my final tally of time devoted to

eleven discrete litigation activities, and my case file of pleadings and research materials. As a

result of that review, and in an exercise of billing judgment, I have adjusted downward the time

for which I seek compensation, which is reflected in the attached Exhibit A. I am confident that

the time reflected in Exhibit A was reasonably expended in order to achieve success in this

matter, and that there are no excessive, redundant or unnecessary hours included in this request.

6. In light of the fact that litigation of this case was bifurcated, I note that all of the time

reflected in Exhibit A was devoted to Part I of the case, and none to Part II.

7. In addition to the time recorded in Exhibit A, I devoted 8.5 hours of time to the

preparation of CREWs motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs, and I intend to submit a



14/22

3

supplemental declaration to account for additional time devoted to the preparation of CREWs

reply memorandum in support of its motion.

8. CREW seeks reimbursement of costs reasonabled incurred in this case in the amount

of $350, which is limited to the filing fee CREW paid to the Court upon the initiation of this

action.

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby affirm that the foregoing is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: January 28, 2010

/s/ David L. Sobel

DAVID L. SOBEL



15/22

4

Exhibit A

Breakdown of Hours for David L. Sobel CREW v. DHS, C.A. No. 08-1046

Work Hours

Draft complaint; prepare filing and service; conferw/ co-counsel

7.0

Negotiate revised scope of FOIA request w/ opposingcounsel; confer w/ co-counsel

3.0

Confer w/ opposing counsel re meet and confer statementand bifurcation of litigation; confer w/ co-counsel

2.0

Review defendants SJ motion, Vaughn index and partiallyreleased records; confer w/ co-counsel

5.5

Research, draft and final prep of plaintiffs opposition andcross-motion for SJ; confer w/ co-counsel

24.0

Review defendants reply memo; confer w/ co-counsel

2.0

Research, draft and final prep of plaintiffs reply memo;

confer w/ co-counsel

19.5

Review courts memorandum opinion; confer w/ co-counsel

2.0

Confer with opposing counsel and co-counsel re defendantsrequest for a stay; research

2.5

Research and draft opposition to defendants motion for stay pendingappeal; consult with co-counsel

3.5

Review disclosed records to verify compliance with courts September 1order

2.0

TOTAL

73.0



16/22




ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

)Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 08-1046 (JDB)

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

DECLARATION OF ANNE L. WEISMANN

1. I am co-counsel for plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) in the above-captioned action and submit this declaration in support of CREWs

motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs.

2. Currently I serve as chief counsel for CREW, a position I have held since March

2005. Prior to that, I was Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau at the Federal

Communications Commission; an assistant branch director of the Federal Programs Branch,

Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; and a staff attorney at the U.S. Department of Labor.

I have been an active member of the bar and practicing law since November 1979.

3. Like all other employees of CREW, I maintain daily time sheets. These records

indicate the number of hours (and in some cases half-hour increments) I have spent on specific

cases, but do not itemize the specific tasks I performed for each of those cases.

4. In order to determine my time for purposes of recovering our fees in this matter, I

reviewed the hours I had spent on the case in coordination with the docket sheet and my case

files, which informed me as to the specific matter pending on a date on which I had expended



17/22

2

time. For example, knowing the plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants motion for a stay on

November 5, 2009, allowed me to attribute the time I spent on this case in the days preceding

November 5, 2009 to that task.

5. In addition, in calculating my hours for purposes of recovering my fees, I exercised

considerable billing judgment. As a result, I typically reduced my hours significantly. For

example, I am claiming reimbursement of only two hours spent on the complaint, while the total

amount of time, including pre-filing consultations with lead counsel David Sobel, was well in

excess of two hours.

6. Exhibit A attached to this declaration contains a break-down of my hours on 10

discrete litigation activities. Those activities correspond to the activities enumerated in my co-

counsel David Sobels declaration. After reviewing my time sheets and the entire record in this

matter I am confident the time reflected in Exhibit A was reasonably expended in order to

achieve success in this matter, and that there are no excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours

included in this request.

7. In addition to the time recorded in Exhibit A, I have to date devoted two hours of time

to the preparation of CREWs motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs. I intend to

submit a supplemental declaration to account for any additional time devoted to the preparation

of CREWs reply memorandum in support of its motion.

8. I also note that because this litigation was bifurcated, I am claiming reimbursement

only for time devoted to Part I of this case, on which CREW prevailed, and not Part II, which has

yet to be resolved.

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.



18/22

3

Dated: January 28, 2010 /s/ Anne L. Weismann

ANNE L. WEISMANN



19/22

EXHIBIT A

Breakdown of Hours for Anne L. Weismann in CREW v. DHS, C.A. No. 08-1046

Work Hours

Draft complaint, prepare filing & service;

confer with co-counsel 2

Negotiate revised scope of FOIA request w/

opposing counsel; confer with co-counsel 2

Confer w/ opposing counsel re meet and confer

statement and bifurcation of litigation; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Review defendants SJ motion, Vaughn index, and

partially released records; confer w/ co-counsel .5

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiffs

opposition and cross-motion for SJ; confer w/

co-counsel 2.5

Review defendants reply memo; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiffs reply

memo; confer w/ co-counsel 1

Review courts memorandum opinion; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Confer with opposing counsel and co-counsel re.

defendants request for a stay; research .5

Research and draft opposition to defendants motion

for stay pending appeal; consult with co-counsel .5

TOTAL 10.5



20/22




ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

)Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 08-1046 (JDB)

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

DECLARATION OF MELANIE SLOAN

1. I am the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW). I submit this declaration in support of CREWs motion for an award of attorneys

fees and costs in this matter.

2. I have served as CREWs executive director since February 2003. Prior to that, I

served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and before that spent

five years on Capitol Hill working for first, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and later the House

Judiciary Committee. I have been an active member of the bar and have practiced law since

December 1991.

3. In order to determine my time for purposes of recovering our fees in this matter, I

reviewed my time sheets. Exhibit A attached to this declaration contains a break-down of my

hours on 10 discrete litigation activities. Those activities correspond to the activities enumerated

in David Sobels declaration. After reviewing my time sheets and the entire record in this matter

I am confident the time reflected in Exhibit A was reasonably expended in order to achieve

success in this matter, and that there are no excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours included



21/22

2

in this request.

4. In addition to the time recorded in Exhibit A, I have to date spent one-half hour on the

preparation of CREWs motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs. I intend to submit a

supplemental declaration to account for any additional time devoted to the preparation of

CREWs reply memorandum in support of its motion.

5. I also note that because this litigation was bifurcated, I am claiming reimbursement

only for time devoted to Part I of this case, on which CREW prevailed, and not Part II, which has

yet to be resolved.

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: January 28, 2010 /s/ Melanie Sloan

MELANIE SLOAN



22/22

EXHIBIT A

Breakdown of Hours for Melanie Sloan in CREW v. DHS, C.A. No. 08-1046

Work Hours

Draft complaint, prepare filing & service;

confer with co-counsel 1

Negotiate revised scope of FOIA request w/

opposing counsel; confer with co-counsel .5

Confer w/ opposing counsel re meet and confer

statement and bifurcation of litigation; confer w/

co-counsel 0

Review defendants SJ motion, Vaughn index, and

partially released records; confer w/ co-counsel

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiffs

opposition and cross-motion for SJ; confer w/

co-counsel 2

Review defendants reply memo; confer w/

co-counsel 0

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiffs replymemo; confer w/ co-counsel 1

Review courts memorandum opinion; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Confer with opposing counsel and co-counsel re.

defendants request for a stay; research 0

Research and draft opposition to defendants motion

for stay pending appeal; consult with co-counsel 0

TOTAL 5


Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	crew
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

CREW v. DHS: Regarding Border Fence: 1/29/10 - CREW's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and...

Documents