A federal court has denied the Informed Consent Action Network's (ICAN) request for attorneys' fees in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The court ruled that ICAN did not prove it was entitled to fees because it failed to demonstrate that its lawsuit caused the agency to release the requested documents. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for obtaining attorneys' fees under FOIA.
The case, Informed Consent Action Network v. National Institutes of Health, was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia under Civil Action No. 2024-1780. The decision, issued by Judge Royce C. Lamberth, affects organizations and individuals seeking to recover legal fees after filing FOIA requests.
ICAN submitted a FOIA request to NIH in May 2022, asking for documents showing royalty payments made to Dr. Anthony Fauci from 2010 to 2021. After two years of waiting for a response, ICAN filed a lawsuit in June 2024, claiming that NIH had not properly processed its request. NIH later acknowledged an administrative error that delayed the processing of ICAN's request.
The dispute centers around whether ICAN is eligible for attorneys' fees under the catalyst theory, which allows plaintiffs to recover fees if their lawsuit causes a change in the agency's position. ICAN argued that it had substantially prevailed because NIH released the documents after the lawsuit was filed. However, NIH countered that the delay was due to an administrative error and that it had already prepared a response before ICAN filed the lawsuit.
In his opinion, Judge Lamberth stated, "ICAN has not carried its burden of demonstrating causation under the catalyst theory." He emphasized that ICAN needed to show that it was more likely than not that NIH would not have released the documents without the lawsuit. The court found that NIH's explanation for the delay was credible and that ICAN did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims.
The ruling highlights the challenges faced by plaintiffs seeking attorneys' fees under FOIA. Judge Lamberth noted that a plaintiff must establish a causal link between the lawsuit and the agency's compliance. He pointed out that if an agency provides a reasonable explanation for a delay, it undermines the plaintiff's argument for causation.
Going forward, this ruling may impact other organizations and individuals who file FOIA requests and seek to recover attorneys' fees. It reinforces the importance of demonstrating a clear connection between the lawsuit and the agency's actions. Organizations may need to carefully consider their legal strategies when pursuing FOIA claims.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether ICAN plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending. However, the ruling sets a precedent for future FOIA cases in the District of Columbia.