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

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. )
)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF

ATTORNEYS’ 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. Sobel

DAVID 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. 434584
Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington
1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 408-5565

Counsel for Plaintiff

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

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. )
)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR 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 Court’s Orders dated December 7, 2009 (Docket No.

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

reach agreement on attorney’s fee issues. Although defendant DHS “will not contest

plaintiff’s eligibility or entitlement to attorney’s fees,” the parties have been unable to

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

fees requested.” Defendant’s 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 2 of 8

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

construction project. Following briefing and the Court’s in 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. Dep’t 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 Court’s Order of September 1, 2009 (Docket No. 37). By minute order dated October

5, 2009, the Court granted defendant’s motion and stayed defendant’s 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 Court’s

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 defendant’s stay motion and

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 8

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 Court’s September 1 Order, as well as the records for which the Court

directed the filing of a supplemental Vaughn submission. See Defendant’s Notice of

Compliance with Court’s 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 agency’s 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 attorney’s 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).

3
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 8

Here, defendant DHS does not “contest plaintiff’s eligibility or entitlement to

attorney’s fees,” Defendant’s 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. Dep’t 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 attorney’s 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 broad Laffey

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 of
experience’ 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.

4
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 5 of 8

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 counsel’s 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 CREW’s 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 CREW’s 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 acknowledges
that it would not be entitled to “double” compensation for any work (such as preparation
of the complaint) for which it is compensated through this petition.

5
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 6 of 8

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 agency’s Vaughn submission and partially redacted responsive

documents; preparing CREW’s opposition to defendant’s summary judgment and

CREW’s cross-motion; reviewing the agency’s reply memorandum; and researching and

drafting CREW’s final brief.

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

Court’s memorandum opinion and order of September 1, 2009; consultation, research and

drafting related to defendant’s motions for stays of the Court’s disclosure order; and

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

Court’s order. CREW notes that defendant’s motion for a stay pending appeal (Docket

No. 39) sought an open-ended delay of the agency’s obligation to “file a supplemental

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

respect to several withheld records. Upon CREW’s opposition, the Court denied that

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

consideration of [defendant’s] 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. See Edmonds, 417 F.3d at 1324.

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

6
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 7 of 8

A. Rates and Hours that Form the Basis for CREW’s 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 the Laffey 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 2.0 465 930
Melanie Sloan 0.5 410 205
Total Lodestar - Fees 5,087

7
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-1 Filed 01/29/10 Page 8 of 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. Sobel

DAVID 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. 434584
Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington
1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 408-5565

Counsel for Plaintiff

4
CREW intends to supplement its request for attorney’s fees to account for additional
time spent in the preparation of its reply in support of this motion.

8
Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-2 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT A

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

Dep’t of Homeland Security, C.A. No. 08-1046

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-2 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2

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 & 105 110 115 120 125 130 130

Law Clerks

Years

Explanatory Notes

1. This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has
been 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 party
to recover "reasonable" attorney's fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (b) (Equal
Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited by
statute. 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 law
school. The various "brackets" are intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3 years after law
school 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 the
change in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, and
then rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple of $5). The result is
subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate and the
lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by the
Consumer 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 Our
Cumberland 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 the
United States Attorney's Office as evidence of prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in the
Washington, 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 Columbia
have used this updated Laffey Matrix when determining whether fee awards under fee-shifting statutes
are 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).

Last Updated on
07/01/2009

Department of Justice USAGov USA Privacy Policy PSN PSN Grants www.regulations.gov Legal Policies and Disclaimers DOJ/Kids
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-3 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 4

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. )
)

DECLARATION OF DAVID L. SOBEL

David 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 CREW’s

motion for an award of attorney’s 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 attorney’s fees.

 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-3 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 4

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 CREW’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, and I intend to submit a

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-3 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 4

supplemental declaration to account for additional time devoted to the preparation of CREW’s

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

3
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-3 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 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; confer

w/ co-counsel 7.0

Negotiate revised scope of FOIA request w/ opposing

counsel; confer w/ co-counsel 3.0

Confer w/ opposing counsel re “meet and confer” statement

and bifurcation of litigation; confer w/ co-counsel 2.0

Review defendant’s SJ motion, Vaughn index and partially

released records; confer w/ co-counsel 5.5

Research, draft and final prep of plaintiff’s opposition and

cross-motion for SJ; confer w/ co-counsel 24.0

Review defendant’s reply memo; confer w/ co-counsel

2.0

Research, draft and final prep of plaintiff’s reply memo;

confer w/ co-counsel 19.5

Review court’s memorandum opinion; confer w/ co-counsel

2.0

Confer with opposing counsel and co-counsel re defendant’s

request for a stay; research 2.5

Research and draft opposition to defendant’s motion for stay pending

appeal; consult with co-counsel 3.5

Review disclosed records to verify compliance with court’s September 1

order 2.0

TOTAL 73.0

4
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-4 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 4

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)
)
)
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 CREW’s

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
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-4 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 4

time. For example, knowing the plaintiff filed its opposition to defendant’s 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 Sobel’s 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 CREW’s 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 CREW’s 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.

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-4 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 4

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

ANNE L. WEISMANN

3
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-4 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 4

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 defendant’s SJ motion, Vaughn index, and

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

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiff’s

opposition and cross-motion for SJ; confer w/
co-counsel 2.5

Review defendant’s reply memo; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiff’s reply

memo; confer w/ co-counsel 1

Review court’s memorandum opinion; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Confer with opposing counsel and co-counsel re.

defendant’s request for a stay; research .5

Research and draft opposition to defendant’s motion

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

TOTAL 10.5
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 3

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)
)
)
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 CREW’s motion for an award of attorneys’

fees and costs in this matter.

2. I have served as CREW’s 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 Sobel’s 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
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 3

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 CREW’s 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

CREW’s 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

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01046-JDB Document 50-5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3

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 defendant’s SJ motion, Vaughn index, and

partially released records; confer w/ co-counsel
Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiff’s
opposition and cross-motion for SJ; confer w/
co-counsel 2

Review defendant’s reply memo; confer w/

co-counsel 0

Research, draft, and final prep of plaintiff’s reply

memo; confer w/ co-counsel 1

Review court’s memorandum opinion; confer w/

co-counsel .5

Confer with opposing counsel and co-counsel re.

defendant’s request for a stay; research 0

Research and draft opposition to defendant’s motion

for stay pending appeal; consult with co-counsel 0

TOTAL 5