A recent Law 360 story by Dave Simpson, “King & Spalding’s Bid to Seal Rates in ‘Untoward’, Judge Says,” reports that a D.C. federal judge said that there is something "untoward" about King & Spalding LLP requesting to seal information about its rates while seeking attorney fees in the form of public dollars, following the firm's win in a Freedom of Information Act dispute with the federal government.  U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta rejected the firm's attempt to seal billing rates of current and former King & Spalding employees who helped force the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over FOIA-requested information about an investigation into medical implant manufacturer Abiomed.

King & Spalding is now asking the government agencies to cover its attorney fees from its FOIA suit, and Judge Mehta ruled that the public has a right to know just how much the attorneys say they should be paid.  "What plaintiff fails to appreciate is that the public interest in disclosure is arguably at its zenith when the fee demand is made against the public fisc," Judge Mehta said.  "Indeed, there is something untoward about plaintiff asking to conceal their hourly rates and the work done from public view, while demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public treasury as compensation."

In April 2016, King & Spalding filed its FOIA requests, seeking correspondences within the federal government about Abiomed, court records show.  Instead of complying quickly to the narrow request, the government "dragged its feet, costing King & Spalding hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees and costs," the firm said.

The firm sued the agencies in August 2016, alleging FOIA violations. After "nearly four years of unnecessary wrangling" and a summary judgment win for the firm, King & Spalding got the information it had been looking for, the firm said in its February bid for fees.

While seeking the fees, the firm asked to seal two documents related to its request. The court granted the sealing request, thinking wrongly that it was unopposed. The government, opposing the request to seal, sought a reconsideration.  Judge Mehta sided with the government, finding that none of the factors in question favor King & Spalding.  The firm's rates have been disclosed in previous court cases, the judge said, diminishing its need for confidentiality in this case.