Second, "[t]he hours reasonably expended are not necessarily equal to the hours actually expended." McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 446 (D.D.C. 1986) (Parker, J.). "Hours that are not properly billed to one's client also are not properly billed to one's adversary pursuant to statutory authority."
However, duplication must typically be warranted by the complexity of the matter or by each attorney's distinct contributions to the case. See Kim, 871 F.2d at 1435 n. 9 ("Here, the participation of more than one attorney constituted a reasonable necessity, given the complexity of legal issues and the breadth of factual evidence involved in this case"); Johnson v. University College, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 1983) ("An award for time spent by two or more attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation"); McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986) (allowing compensation for two attorneys where multiple lawyers appeared at major oral arguments or hearings). Mardirossian does not assert that the mediation was particularly complex or that his attorneys handled distinct aspects of the mediation.
On September 12, 1986 counsel were awarded an interim payment covering legal services provided and expenses advanced on behalf of plaintiffs for an earlier period of the litigation, from 1973-1980. McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437 (D.D.C. 1986). Now that the litigation has been finally resolved on the merits, they seek compensation for legal services rendered and expenses incurred since 1981.
Applicants were granted an interim award covering the period from the outset of the case until January 30, 1981, the date of the final relief order. See McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 441 (D.D.C. 1986). After some considerable delay, the government eventually complied with the district court's order, see McKenzie v. Kennickell, 669 F.Supp. 529, 530-31, 535 (D.D.C. 1987).
As a general matter, internal strategy conferences are compensable, and each participant's time may be counted toward the fee application. See McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986) (β[C]onferences between attorneys to discuss strategy . . . are an essential part of effective litigation . . . and there is no reason or authority for allowing only one lawyer to charge for time that more than one lawyer justifiably spent.
This amount is slightly more than 23% of the total fees requested. Although conferences between attorneys to discuss and strategize are an important aspect of effective litigation, see McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986), the party seeking fees must establish that the communications were efficient and essential. Fresh Packing Corp. v. Guicho, 2016 WL 1718286, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2016); see also Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming reduction in fees for intra-office conferences when fee claimant failed to provide a "persuasive justification" for the conferences). The Court first notes that this FOIA matter was not particularly complex; although there was an initial motion to stay, this matter was resolved with a production schedule.
An attorney "is entitled to all expenses associated with the litigation that [she] would normally expect to pass on to fee paying clients," so long as the costs are reasonable. Holbrook v. District of Columbia , 305 F.Supp.2d 41, 46 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting McKenzie v. Kennickell , 645 F.Supp. 437, 452 (D.D.C. 1986) ). Thus, "[a]n award of costs for copying, faxing, and postage ... [is] customarily included in fees awards."
The undersigned finds that the expenses for copying and mailing as well as the fees for the service of process and filing are reasonable and normally included as part of the award to a prevailing party in this District. See Holbrook v. District of Columbia, 305 F. Supp. 2d 41, 46 (D.D.C. 2004) ("An attorney, however, is entitled to 'all expenses associated with the litigation that [she] would normally expect to pass on to fee paying clients,' provided such costs are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.") (citing McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 452 (D.D.C. 1986)). Calculation of the Total Fees and Costs
It is more than reasonable for two attorneys to prepare for oral argument even if only one of them is ultimately making the argument. McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986) ("[T]here is no reason or authority for allowing only one lawyer to charge for time that more than one lawyer justifiably spent."); Williamsburg Fair Hous. Comm. v. Ross-Rodney Hous. Corp., 599 F. Supp. 509, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("[D]ivision of responsibility may make it necessary for more than one attorney to attend activities such as depositions and hearings."). Bridgeport's objection will be overruled.
An attorney βis entitled to all expenses associated with the litigation that [she] would normally expect to pass on to fee paying clients,β so long as the costs are reasonable and reasonably incurred. SeeHolbrook v. Dist. of Columbia, 305 F.Supp.2d 41, 46 (D.D.C.2004) (quoting McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 452 (D.D.C.1986). Costs for faxing are customarily included in prevailing party fee awards in IDEA litigation, seeMcClam v. Dist. of Columbia, 808 F.Supp.2d 184, 190β91 (D.D.C.2011), but costs have often been reimbursed at the reduced rate of $0.15 per page.