Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

5 Citing cases

  1. Louise Trauma Ctr. v. Wolf

    20-cv-2348 (DLF) (D.D.C. Sep. 18, 2024)

    ); Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 316 F.Supp.3d 168, 172 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding “time spent reviewing documents released by” the responding agency “is not compensable”).

  2. Bond v. Friendship Pub. Charter Sch. Bd. of Trs.

    23-cv-367-ZMF (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2023)

    Thus, this was an “unnecessary use of funds and one the Court will not recompense.” Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 316 F.Supp.3d 168, 172 (D.D.C. 2018) (refusing to reimburse expert fees where expert's opinion was unnecessary).

  3. WP Co. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin.

    514 F. Supp. 3d 267 (D.D.C. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    The Court, however, finds that the "vast majority" of billing entries are "appropriately detailed and allow [it] to discern ‘with a high degree of certainty’ the work for which [Plaintiffs are] requesting compensation." Am. Immigr. Council v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 82 F. Supp. 3d 396, 412 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Role Models, 353 F.3d at 970 ); see also Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 316 F. Supp. 3d 168, 171 (D.D.C. 2018) (rejecting challenge to block billing where relevant entries "deal[t] with minimal time periods ... and typically conflate[d] but two tasks"); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 999 F. Supp. 2d at 74 (finding that lawyers appropriately billed for internal conferences). Even if a few entries could perhaps have benefited from greater detail, the Court "declines ... to engage in the kind of ‘nitpicking’ invited by" SBA's objections.

  4. Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

    Civil Action No. 16-1609 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    Remanding a matter three times

    And, it finds, contrary to defendant's assertion, that the other isolated mistake does not call into question the overall accuracy of plaintiff's time records. Def.'s Resp. at 6; see Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 316 F. Supp. 3d 168, 171 (D.D.C. 2018) ("The Court does not infer from these isolated mistakes that counsel's timekeeping was generally not contemporaneous."). III.

  5. Lewis v. Dist. of Columbia Gov't

    Civil Action No. 15-521 (JEB) (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    In accord with the Supreme Court's directive in Fox, 563 U.S. at 838, it will, once again, decline "to engage in the kind of 'nitpicking' invited by" the District's "smaller-scale objections." Am. Immigration Council v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 82 F. Supp. 3d 396, 411 (D.D.C. 2015); accord Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 316 F. Supp. 3d 168, 171 (D.D.C. 2018). So as not to leave the reader lost along a seemingly endless path, here is a quick map of the following section.