Cauich Castillo v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Background

Jose Armando Cauich Castillo filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking agency records concerning him from March and April 2022, including documents, recordings, and requests for medical assistance. He submitted two essentially identical requests on April 7, 2023, one with unsigned documents and one with signed documents. He asked to cancel the first request, but both requests remained open in the agency’s tracking system.

The agency denied expedited processing for both requests on June 15, 2023. It then placed them in the ordinary processing queue. Castillo filed this action on June 26, 2023. After the lawsuit was filed, the agency changed the first request to its complex-processing track because it believed that request was the one involved in the lawsuit. The second request remained in the ordinary track because the agency did not know Castillo intended the complaint to cover it.

After receiving signed documents and information about the possible location of the incident, the agency searched for records and eventually released six pages on September 15, 2023, with minimal redactions. Castillo did not challenge the redactions. The released records concerned an encounter near Nogales, Arizona, rather than the San Diego-area incident connected to the possible tort claim Castillo was investigating. The parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice to Castillo’s right to seek attorney fees.

Fee request and legal standard

Castillo sought $30,167.50 in attorney fees and $429.72 in filing and service costs. Under FOIA, a court may award reasonable fees and litigation costs when the complainant has substantially prevailed. The statute identifies two ways to substantially prevail: obtaining relief through a court order, enforceable written agreement, or consent decree; or obtaining relief through a voluntary or unilateral change in the agency’s position when the claim is not insubstantial.

The court discussed uncertainty in Ninth Circuit law about whether a plaintiff seeking fees based on an agency’s voluntary change in position must show that the lawsuit caused the change. The court did not need to resolve that issue because it concluded Castillo was not eligible for fees under either approach.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that nothing showed Castillo obtained relief through a change in CBP’s position. CBP had placed both requests in the processing queue and had never taken the position that it did not have to search for records or could withhold responsive records. It also had not refused to produce records before the March 2024 deadline Castillo identified as important.

The court acknowledged that CBP’s post-lawsuit processing might have produced results somewhat faster than ordinary first-in, first-out processing. But even assuming that procedure was a change in position from the denial of expedited processing, the court concluded Castillo’s expedited-processing claim was not substantial. The court reasoned that the agency appeared likely to produce records within the period Castillo identified as critical and that the circumstances did not show avoidable delay. Treating Castillo’s request for faster processing as an entitlement to move ahead of other requests would therefore amount to “line jumping,” not a substantial claim for purposes of fee eligibility.

The court separately held that the discretionary factors would not support a fee award even if Castillo were eligible. His interest in records related to a possible personal tort claim did not create a significant public benefit, and the case did not significantly advance the public interest in timely FOIA responses. His lack of a commercial interest weighed somewhat in his favor, but the government had not withheld the records. The court also found that his interest, although legitimate, was unlikely to have been critical because he could have filed the possible tort claim and obtained information through that process or later litigation.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion for an award of attorney fees and costs.