This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Moore v Regan | |
|---|---|
| Case name | Moore v Regan |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| Judges | A. Wallace Tashima, Mary M. Schroeder, William A. Fletcher |
| Date decided | 1997 |
Moore v Regan
Moore v Regan was a 1997 United States Court of Appeals decision addressing fee-shifting under the Freedom of Information Act and the treatment of prevailing party status in litigation involving federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The opinion explored statutory interpretation principles articulated in precedents like Pierce v. Underwood, Hensley v. Eckerhart, and Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, applying rules from the Administrative Procedure Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act context. The case has been cited in subsequent disputes involving the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and fee awards in litigation involving the United States Department of Justice.
The litigation arose against a backdrop of expanding civil litigation over access to agency records under the Freedom of Information Act and contested fee awards under fee-shifting provisions. The legal environment included decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting "prevailing party" status and fee entitlement, such as Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources and Hensley v. Eckerhart. Agencies implicated in similar fee disputes included the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, each subject to litigation in venues like the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Plaintiff Moore sought access to agency records maintained by federal entities, challenging withholding decisions that involved records related to regulatory actions overseen by bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission and records touching on programs administered by the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Moore filed a complaint in a federal district court invoking the Freedom of Information Act and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with attorney's fees under the Act's fee-shifting provision. The agencies defended the withholding under exemptions and asserted administrative justifications similar to positions previously advanced before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
After the district court rendered judgment, Moore sought an award of attorney's fees. The district court's ruling on prevailing party status and fee entitlement was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's application of fee-shifting standards, considering precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States and circuit precedent such as Pierce v. Underwood and Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources. Judges including A. Wallace Tashima, Mary M. Schroeder, and William A. Fletcher issued the appellate opinion that clarified standards for attorney's fees under the FOIA in that circuit.
The principal legal issues were: (1) whether Moore qualified as a "prevailing party" under the Freedom of Information Act fee-shifting provision; (2) how to apply prevailing-party doctrine as informed by Hensley v. Eckerhart, Pierce v. Underwood, and Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources; and (3) how to calculate and award attorney's fees where agency litigation produced some relief but not a complete judicially enforceable judgment on all claims, implicating doctrines developed in the Administrative Procedure Act and fee jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Ninth Circuit examined whether the plaintiff had obtained relief that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties, relying on the prevailing-party framework articulated in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources and statutory text of the Freedom of Information Act. The court analyzed whether voluntary agency compliance or partial relief satisfied the "judicially sanctioned change" criterion recognized in decisions such as Buckhannon and distinguished that line from the standards applied in Hensley v. Eckerhart for fee calculations. The panel considered precedent from other circuits, including decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and evaluated the presence of a judicially enforceable judgment or court-ordered consent decree as determinative under governing Supreme Court doctrine.
The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a prevailing party for fee purposes under the Freedom of Information Act where relief consisted principally of agency action not embodied in a judicially enforceable judgment or court-ordered consent decree, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources. The appellate court vacated or remanded aspects of the district court's fee award consistent with its interpretation of prevailing-party standards, instructing application of circuit precedent and Supreme Court holdings including Pierce v. Underwood where relevant.
The decision influenced FOIA litigation strategy and fee practice in the Ninth Circuit, affecting litigants in venues such as the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It has been cited in subsequent cases addressing the interplay between voluntary agency compliance, consent decrees, and fee entitlement under the Freedom of Information Act and has informed scholarship appearing in law reviews at institutions like Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and Stanford Law School. Courts resolving fee disputes involving the Department of Justice and independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and Environmental Protection Agency have drawn on the principles articulated in this opinion when considering prevailing-party status and fee awards.