2

Argument (“Pl.’s

Oral Argument

Mot.” or the “

motion for oral argument

”)

. Upon careful

consideration of the parties’ submissions,

2

the Court concludes that it must grant in part and hold in abeyance in part the pla

intiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and hold in abeyance the plaintiff’s

supplemental motion

for attorneys’ fees

and motion for oral argument pending further submission by the plaintiff.

I.

BACKGROUND

The Court has previously set forth the factual back ground of this case, see T rue the Vote, Inc. v. IRS, 71 F. Supp. 3d 219, 223

–

25 (D.D.C. 2014) (Walton J.),

aff’d in part, rev’

d in part and remanded, 831 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and theref ore will not recite i t again here. The Court will however, briefly summarize the procedural posture of this case, which is pertinent to the resolution of the pending motions. As previously noted by this Court, the p laintiff asserted five claims in this action: Count one s[ought] declaratory relief that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy tax- exempt status as a charitable organization described in 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Count two also s[ought] a declaratory judgment that the IRS [t]argeting [s]cheme

violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and injunctive relief to prevent

additional violations. Count three s[ought] monetary damages against certain defendants in their individual capacities for their alleged participation in the IRS [t]argeting [s]cheme. Count four claim[ed] violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, which

2

In addition to the filings already identified, the Court considered the following submissions in reaching its decision: (1) the Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

(“Compl.”); (2)

the Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and V and Statement of Points and Authorities (“Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss”); (

3

) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Application and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Pl.’s Mem.”); (

4) the Declaration of James Bopp, Jr. in Support of

Plaintiff’s Application and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,

Costs, and Expenses Under

the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Bopp Decl.”); (

5

) the Declaration of John C. Eastman i n Support of Plaintiff’s Application and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,

Costs, and Expens

es Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Eastman Decl.”); (

6

) the Declaration of Noel H. Johnson in Support of Plaintiff’s Application and Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, C

osts, and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Johnson Decl.”); (

7) the Declaration of Cleta

Mitchell in Support of P laintiff’s Application and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,

Costs, and Expenses Under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (“Mitchell Decl.”); (

8

) the United States’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application and Motion for

Atto

rneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses (“Defs.’ Opp’n”); (

9

) the Plaintiff’s Reply to United States’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application and Motion for At torneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses (“Pl.’s Reply”); (

10

) the United States’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument (“Defs.’ Oral Argument Opp’n”); and (1

1) the Reply in Support

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument (“Pl. ’s Oral Argument Reply”).