Gatore v. DHS , 286 F.Supp.3d 25, 49 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Boehner v. McDermott , 541 F.Supp.2d 310, 325 (D.D.C. 2008) ). "Courts, therefore, ‘have an obligation to scrutinize the hours spent preparing the fee petitions to insure that the total is reasonable and that it does not represent a windfall for the attorneys.’ " Boehner , 541 F.Supp.2d at 325 (quoting Heard v. District of Columbia, No. 02-0296, 2006 WL 2568013, at *19 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006) ). Mr. Robinson's attorneys seek approximately $21,000 for forty hours spent preparing the motion.
In response, Congressman Boehner contends his fees on fees request is reasonable because he exercised proper billing judgment and voluntarily reduced a substantial portion of the fees, and, overall, Congressman McDermott "vastly understates" the work that went into the petition and the response to Congressman McDermott's objections. Examples of such cases include American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 72 F.3d 907, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (awarding $37,185 where fee petition reflected substantial research on novel issues); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (concluding that research and writing of "boilerplate" fee petition should have required at most 8 hours); Thomas ex rel. A.T. v. District of Columbia, 2007 WL 891367 (D.D.C. March 22, 2007) (reducing fees for fee petition by 50% because fee litigation is not "complex federal litigation" and some of fee request included administrative and procedural tasks); Heard v. District of Columbia, 2006 WL 2568013, at *20 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006) (finding requested amount of $108,829.70 for fee petition patently unreasonable and reducing fees to $56,500); Heller v. District of Columbia Dep't of Housing and Community Development, 1987 WL 15928 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 1987) (reducing compensable time to prepare fee petition from 42.5 hours to 28.3 hours despite well-organized nature of petition and that it contained procedural history, summary of findings and conclusions, and descriptions of the billing records that supported the request). "It is `settled in this circuit' that `[h]ours reasonably devoted to a request for fees are compensable.'"
Courts have an “obligation to scrutinize the hours spent preparing the fee petitions to insure that the total is reasonable and that it does not represent a windfall for the attorneys.” Heard v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 02-296 (CKK), 2006 WL 2568013, at *19 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006) (quoting Farris v. Cox, 508 F.Supp. 222, 226 (N.D. Cal. 1981)).
Id. The party filing the objections may not "present new initiatives to the district judge," Heard v. District of Columbia, 2006 WL 2568013 at *5 (D.D.C. September 5, 2006) (quoting Aikens v. Shalala, 956 F. Supp. 14, 19 (D.D.C. 1997), as the district court may review "only those issues that the parties have raised in their objections to the Magistrate Judge's report." Aikens, 956 F. Supp. at 19.
On close scrutiny of the record, therefore, the Court concludes that no further reduction of “fees on fees” beyond the global 25% discount explained above is appropriate. The hours spent by Plaintiff were, on the whole, “reasonably devoted to [its] request for fees,” Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar–B–Que Rest., 771 F.2d 521, 528 (D.C.Cir.1985); EPIC I, 811 F.Supp.2d at 240, and would not constitute a “windfall” for the attorneys. Id. (citing Heard v. Dist. of Columbia, 2006 WL 2568013, at *19 (D.D.C.2006)). 3.
Billing descriptions can be read in context, with clarification coming from surrounding billing entries as well as the docket. Heard v. Dist. of Columbia, Civ. No. 02–296, 2006 WL 2568013, at *14–15 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006). The determination of a market rate is “inherently difficult” and is decided by the court in its discretion.
Billing descriptions can be read in context, with clarification coming from surrounding billing entries as well as the docket. Heard v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 02–296, 2006 WL 2568013, at *14–15 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006). The Court need not tarry long on the reasonableness of the fees sought because Texas has presented no argument contesting any aspect of them.
The billing descriptions can be read in context, with clarification coming from surrounding billing entries as well as the docket. Heard v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 02–296, 2006 WL 2568013, at *14–15 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006), appeal dismissed, No. 06–7183, 2007 WL 465615 (D.C.Cir. Feb. 5, 2007). Section 1415(i)(3)(C) of IDEA provides that hourly rates “shall be based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished.”
The billing descriptions can be read in context, with clarification coming from surrounding billing entries as well as the docket. Heard v. Dist. of Columbia, Civ. No. 02–296(CKK), 2006 WL 2568013, at *14–15 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006). The number of billable hours in a fee application may be reduced for failure to allocate tasks efficiently among attorneys based on their experience, i.e., where research tasks are performed by relatively senior attorneys more frequently than seems justifiable, or where some attorneys' efforts have been duplicated by others.
The billing descriptions can be read in context, with clarification coming from surrounding billing entries as well as the docket. Heard v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 02–296(CKK), 2006 WL 2568013, at *14–15 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2006). 2. Hourly Rates