Oskowis v. Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District 9

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 9, 2019
• Docket: 3:17-cv-08070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Matthew Oskowis, No. CV-17-08070-PCT-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District #9, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is an amended motion for attorneys’ fees filed by 16 Defendant Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District #9 (“the District”) (Doc. 124) and a

17 motion to review taxation of costs filed by Plaintiff Matthew Oskowis (Doc. 129). For the 18 following reasons, both motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

19 BACKGROUND

20 Oskowis is the father of E.O., a minor diagnosed with infantile autism. Because 21 E.O. suffers from an intellectual disability, he is entitled to a free appropriate public 22 education (“FAPE”) as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

23 (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. This case arises from three administrative proceedings

24 that were initiated when Oskowis filed due process complaints with the Arizona

25 Department of Education, each arguing that E.O. had been denied a FAPE.

26 Oskowis filed those due process complaints between June 2016 and March 2017, 27 initiating administrative proceedings 16C-DP-066-ADE, 17C-DP-013-ADE, and 17C-DP- 28 053-ADE. In each of those proceedings, the respective administrative law judge (“ALJ”) 1 dismissed Oskowis’s complaint without a hearing, determining that the complaint was 2 frivolous. 3 On April 13, 2017, Oskowis filed this lawsuit. (Doc. 1.) The operative complaint 4 asserted three causes of action, each corresponding to one of the administrative 5 proceedings. (Doc. 17.) Oskowis claimed that the ALJs erred in dismissing his due process 6 complaints. (Id.) 7 On June 22, 2018, the District moved for summary judgment on all three causes of 8 action. (Doc. 68.) 9 On February 19, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the District. 10 (Doc. 77.) 11 On August 22, 2019, the District filed an amended motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 12 124.) 13 On August 28, 2019, Oskowis filed a motion to review taxation of costs. (Doc. 14 129). 15 DISCUSSION 16 I. The District’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees 17 The District seeks attorneys’ fees incurred while defending the action in this Court 18 and while pursuing the pending request for attorneys’ fees. It does not, in contrast, seek 19 any fees arising from its defense of the three administrative proceedings. Nevertheless, 20 because the administrative proceedings are relevant to understanding Oskowis’s causes of 21 action in this case, the Court reviews them below. 22 A. Oskowis’s Causes Of Action 23 1. Cause Of Action I: 17C-DP-013-ADE 24 Cause of Action I arose from administrative proceeding 17C-DP-013-ADE, which 25 Oskowis initiated on September 1, 2016 by filing a due process complaint. (Doc. 17 ¶ 36.) 26 Oskowis argued the District denied E.O. a FAPE by (1) failing “to monitor [E.O.’s] 27 progress against the annual goals & objectives of [his] IEP [individualized education 28 program] [and] their corresponding STOs [short term objectives]” and (2) failing “to

-2- 1 engage the IEP Team to revise the IEP to address the lack of expected progress of [E.O.] 2 toward those STOs.” (Id. ¶ 38.) 3 The ALJ dismissed Oskowis’s due process complaint on March 10, 2017. (Doc. 4 75-1 at 2-6.) The ALJ’s order concluded: “Petitioners’ Complaint fails as a matter of law 5 and should be dismissed as the claims therein are not supported by the IDEA or its 6 regulations. Given the [rejection of the same argument in past proceedings] and the lack 7 of any support in the IDEA or its regulations on this claimed issued, the Petitioners’ instant 8 Complaint is deemed to be frivolous.” (Doc. 75-1 at 6.)1 9 This Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the District on 10 Cause of Action I, determining that the ALJ had properly rejected each of Oskowis’s claims 11 in that proceeding. (Doc. 77.) The Court rejected Oskowis’s first claim—that the District 12 had failed to monitor E.O.’s progress in relation to the objectives set out in his IEP— 13 because, under the IDEA, how progress toward short-term objectives or benchmarks is to 14 be monitored or provided “is left up to the IEP drafters.” (Id. at 9-10.) E.O.’s IEP “only 15 required the District to provide three progress reports during the school year,” which 16 Oskowis acknowledged he received. (Id.) The Court also rejected Oskowis’s second 17 claim, that the District should have amended E.O.’s IEP because E.O. wasn’t meeting his 18 STOs, because “[t]here is no requirement that a school revise an IEP midway through the 19 school year when a student isn’t making progress toward STOs.” (Id. at 10-11.) 20 2. Cause Of Action II: 16C-DP-066-ADE 21 Cause of Action II arose from administrative proceeding 16C-DP-066-ADE, which 22 Oskowis initiated on June 16, 2016 by filing a due process complaint. (Doc. 17 ¶ 57.) 23 Oskowis argued the District denied E.O. a FAPE over three calendar years because: (1) the 24 District didn’t provide a qualified paraprofessional to E.O.; (2) the paraprofessional 25 provided by the District wasn’t adequately supervised by the special education teacher; and 26 27 1 Although the order stated the “Complaint is dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim” (Doc. 75-1 at 6), it also included a footnote suggesting the ALJ was making 28 a “summary judgment determination” rather than “a possible sufficiency determination.” (Doc. 75-1 at 2 n.1.)

-3- 1 (3) the IDEA precluded E.O.’s paraprofessional from providing services within E.O.’s self- 2 contained special education classroom. (Id. ¶ 59; Doc. 69-1 at 42-56.) 3 The District filed a response on June 24, 2016. Included as attachments to the 4 response were “affidavits from two of [E.O.’s] prior special education teachers attesting 5 that they provided direct supervision of the paraprofessional” as well as evidence 6 demonstrating the paraprofessional’s qualifications. (Doc. 75-1 at 11; see also Doc. 69 7 ¶¶ 12-15, 17-20.) 8 During a “prehearing conference,” the ALJ asked Oskowis to address the evidence 9 that had been submitted by the District. Oskowis “acknowledged . . . that [he] had no 10 information or belief to support [his] allegation that the paraprofessional did not meet the 11 requirements . . . to be considered a qualified paraprofessional” and similarly “offered no 12 basis for [his] allegation that the special education teacher did not properly supervise the 13 paraprofessional.” (Doc. 75-1 at 10-11; see also Doc. 69 ¶ 16.) 14 Accordingly, on March 13, 2017, the ALJ issued an order dismissing Oskowis’s 15 complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 75-1 at 9-12.) The order concluded: “Given 16 the baseless assertions presented in the Complaint, Petitioners’ Complaint is deemed 17 frivolous. IT IS ORDERED granting Respondent School District’s Motion to Dismiss the 18 Complaint.” (Id. at 12, emphasis omitted.) 19 This Court granted summary judgment to the District on Cause of Action II, holding 20 that the ALJ had properly dismissed each of Oskowis’s claims in that proceeding. (Doc. 21 77 at 11-13.) First, the Court held that E.O.’s paraprofessional—Ms. Parry—was qualified 22 because she “holds a high school diploma (Doc. 69-2 at 10) and she obtained a passing 23 score on Education Testing Services’ ParaPro Assessment (id. at 12-15),” which means she 24 satisfied the requirements to be deemed “highly qualified” under the NCLB, which was in 25 effect during the three years at issue. (Doc. 77 at 12.) The Court also noted that, at the 26 prehearing conference held by the ALJ in the administrative proceeding, Oskowis admitted 27 “he didn’t have any evidence to show the paraprofessional was unqualified.” (Id., citing 28 Doc. 75-1 at 10-11.)

-4- 1 Second, for similar reasons, the Court upheld the ALJ’s determination that Oskowis 2 hadn’t demonstrated that the special education teacher failed to supervise Ms. Parry. (Id. 3 at 13.) The Court explained that the District had presented evidence during the 4 administrative proceedings that satisfied each of the supervision requirements in the 5 NCLB.2 Moreover, Oskowis “conceded, during the prehearing conference, that he didn’t 6 have any contrary evidence,” and had, during an earlier due process hearing, “testified he 7 had never observed E.O. in the classroom and didn’t have any first-hand knowledge of 8 what occurred in the classroom.” (Doc. 77 at 13 & n.9, citing Doc. 75-1 at 11 n.2.) 9 Third, the Court determined the ALJ correctly rejected Oskowis’s claim “that the 10 IDEA prohibits supplementary aids from rendering services outside a regular education 11 classroom.” (Doc. 77 at 13.) This is because “[u]nder 34 C.F.R. § 300.42, ‘supplementary 12 aids and services’ mean ‘aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular 13 education classes, other education-related settings, and in extracurricular and nonacademic 14 settings, to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the 15 maximum extent appropriate . . . .’ Id. (emphases added). Therefore, “the ALJ properly 16 concluded that ‘supplementary aids and services may be provided in a variety of academic 17 and nonacademic settings’ (Doc. 75-1 at 11) and that Oskowis’s arguments on this issue 18 didn’t state a claim as a matter of law.” (Doc. 77 at 13.) 19 3. Cause Of Action III: 17C-DP-053-ADE 20 The third cause of action arose from proceeding 17C-DP-053-ADE, which Oskowis 21 initiated by filing a due process complaint on March 2, 2017. (Doc. 17 ¶ 78.) Oskowis 22 alleged the District denied E.O. a FAPE because, between August 5, 2015 and December 23 16, 2015, the District didn’t begin delivering services to E.O. until 9:00 a.m., which “would 24 not allow enough time for the services of the IEP to be adequately delivered.” (Doc. 69-3 25 at 8.) 26 2 Under the NCLB, a paraprofessional works under the direct supervision of a special 27 education teacher if (1) “[t]he teacher plans the instructional activities that the paraprofessional carries out”; (2) “[t]he teacher evaluates the achievement of the students 28 with whom the paraprofessional is working”; and (3) “[t]he paraprofessional works in close and frequent physical proximity to the teacher.” 34 C.F.R. § 200.59(c)(2).

-5- 1 The ALJ issued an order on March 10, 2017 dismissing Oskowis’s due process 2 complaint and an order on March 28, 2017 denying reconsideration. (Doc. 75-1 at 14-17.) 3 The March 28 order concluded: “Petitioners’ instant due process complaint fails as a matter 4 of law and should be dismissed. Based on the fact that Petitioners’ previous two complaints 5 on the exact same issue were dismissed, Petitioners knew or should have known that the 6 Complaint does not raise a valid claim under the IDEA. For this reason, Petitioners’ instant 7 due process complaint is deemed to be frivolous.” (Doc. 75-1 at 16.) 8 This Court granted summary judgment on Cause of Action III in favor of the 9 District. (Doc. 77 at 14-15.) The Court reasoned that, even if “the District didn’t begin 10 delivering services to E.O. until 9:00 a.m.” each day, there would still be 1,725 minutes in 11 the school week in which to administer E.O.’s IEP, and the IEP only provided for 1,170 12 minutes of special instruction. (Id.) Thus, Oskowis failed to state a claim as a matter of 13 law. 14 B. Analysis 15 The District moves for attorneys’ fees, arguing that Oskowis’s lawsuit was both 16 frivolous and brought for an improper purpose. (Doc. 124.) The District seeks fees for 17 both its defense of Oskowis’s claims and the time spent preparing its fee request. Banda 18 v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 637 F. App’x 335, 336 (9th Cir. 2016) (district 19 court may award “fees on fees”). 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) permits the Court to 20 award “reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs” to a prevailing educational agency 21 against a parent who brought an action “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to 22 cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Thus, for the 23 Court to award fees to the District, it must determine (1) the District was the prevailing 24 party and (2) Oskowis brought the action for an improper purpose. If the Court finds in 25 the affirmative on both those issues, it must assess the reasonableness of the fees sought. 26 1. Prevailing Party 27 The District argues it was the prevailing party and Oskowis doesn’t dispute this 28 assertion. The Court agrees. On February 19, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment

-6- 1 to the District on all of Oskowis’s affirmative claims. (Doc. 77). A party that has obtained 2 a judgment on the merits, like the District has here, is a prevailing party under the IDEA. 3 P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 474 F.3d 1165, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “some 4 judicial sanction,” which includes a judgment on the merits, is necessary to be a “prevailing 5 party” under the IDEA); G.M. v. Saddleback Valley Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5947213, *1 n.3 6 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (district that was successful in defending against IDEA action brought by 7 parent was prevailing party). 8 2. Improper Purpose 9 The Court must first determine whether Oskowis’s action was frivolous before it 10 considers whether the action was brought for an improper purpose. R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. 11 Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 1126 (9th Cir. 2011) (“As a matter of law, a 12 non-frivolous claim is never filed for an improper purpose.”).3 13 When determining whether an action was frivolous, the district court should “resist 14 the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because 15 a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without 16 foundation.” C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 784 F.3d 1237, 1245 (9th Cir. 2015) 17 (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[a] case may be deemed frivolous only when the result 18 is obvious or the . . . arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Id. (citation omitted). 19 A case is less likely to be considered frivolous “when there is very little case law on point 20 and a claim raises a novel question.” Id. 21 All three of Oskowis’s causes of action were frivolous. First, Cause of Action I 22 (17C-DP-013-ADE) was wholly without merit. Oskowis’s first claim, that the District 23 wasn’t monitoring E.O.’s progress, was flatly contradicted by Oskowis’s acknowledgment 24 that he had received three progress reports during the 2015-2016 school year. (Doc. 75-1 25 at 5.) His second claim relied on an objectively baseless interpretation of the regulations 26 3 27 The standard to determine whether a claim is frivolous under the IDEA is the same as that employed in civil rights cases and, thus, the Court employs the standard developed 28 in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22, (1978). R.P., 631 F.3d at 1124-25.

-7- 1 implementing the IDEA that had previously been rejected. The Supreme Court has 2 explained that an educational agency is required to review, and if appropriate, revise a 3 child’s IEP, but not more frequently than each year. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson 4 Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 182 (1982) (“Local or regional 5 educational agencies must review, and where appropriate revise, each child’s IEP at least 6 annually.) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Oskowis had argued that the District was 7 required to amend E.O.’s IEP “as appropriate,” which he asserted was more than once a 8 year. (Doc. 70 at 6-7.) This wasn’t the first time Oskowis had unsuccessfully made this 9 argument—in the administrative proceeding giving rise to this cause of action, the ALJ 10 explained that, during an earlier administrative proceeding (Case No. 14C-DP-006-ADE), 11 an ALJ had rejected Oskowis’s argument that the District failed to revise his IEP “as 12 appropriate.” (Doc. 75-1 at 4.) Thus, Cause of Action I was frivolous. 13 In his response to the District’s motion, Oskowis only identifies one reason why 14 Count I should be deemed non-frivolous—because the underlying ALJ decisions were 15 issued within a day of each other and he suspected this “strong temporal . . . relationship” 16 showed the decisions were issued in retaliation for his filing of complaints against the 17 District with the Arizona Department of Education. (Doc. 128-1 at 10.) This conspiracy 18 theory hardly illustrates that the claims Oskowis was advancing in Count I had a reasonable 19 foundation in fact or law. 20 All three claims in Cause of Action II (16C-DP-066-ADE) were also frivolous. 21 Oskowis’s first two claims, that E.O’s paraprofessional was unqualified and lacked 22 adequate supervision, didn’t have any evidentiary support. Indeed, at a pre-hearing 23 conference during the administrative proceeding, Oskowis “acknowledged . . . that [he] 24 had no information or belief to support [his] allegation that the paraprofessional did not 25 meet the requirements . . . to be considered a qualified paraprofessional” and similarly 26 “offered no basis for [his] allegation that the special education teacher did not properly 27 supervise the paraprofessional.” (Doc. 75-1 at 10-11.) At the same time, the District 28 offered evidence affirmatively showing that E.O.’s paraprofessional was both qualified and

-8- 1 adequately supervised. Nevertheless, Oskowis brought this action appealing the ALJ’s 2 decision. Because Oskowis had no basis to believe that E.O’s paraprofessional was 3 unqualified or inadequately supervised, those claims were frivolous. 4 Oskowis’s third claim in Cause of Action II was frivolous as well. Oskowis’s legal 5 argument that IDEA doesn’t allow a paraprofessional to provide services in a self- 6 contained special education classroom is obviously wrong—the plain language of the 7 statute explicitly provides that “supplementary aids and services” are “aids, services, and 8 other supports that are provided in regular education classes [and] other education-related 9 settings.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.42 (emphasis added). 10 In his response to the District’s motion, Oskowis contends that Count II should be 11 deemed non-frivolous (1) due to the same conspiracy theory he advances with respect to 12 Count I (Doc. 128-1 at 10) and (2) because a litigant’s failure to submit affirmative 13 evidence in support of a claim shouldn’t be viewed as proof the claim was frivolous (id. at 14 11). These arguments are unavailing. As the District persuasively argues in its reply: “The 15 failure to present additional evidence in an IDEA appeal alone does not indicate an 16 improper purpose. However, in the specific context of Cause of Action #2, it very much 17 does. Plaintiff’s claims in Cause of Action #2 in the underlying due process complaint 18 failed because he ‘didn’t have any evidence to show the paraprofessional was unqualified 19 or improperly supervised.’ Yet, he filed this lawsuit, and this Court granted the District’s 20 summary judgment for the same reason. Plaintiff could not have objectively believed that 21 this Court would overrule the ALJ’s decision in the absence of any evidence supporting his 22 claims.” (Doc. 133 at 3, citation omitted.) 23 Finally, Cause of Action III (17C-DP-053-ADE) was frivolous. Oskowis argued 24 that, because E.O.’s bus arrived late to pick him up, there wasn’t enough time in the day to 25 deliver the services required by his IEP. Notably, administrative proceeding 17C-DP-053- 26 ADE was not the first time Oskowis had unsuccessfully argued E.O. was denied a FAPE 27 because his bus was late. (Doc. 75-1 at 16.) Basic math disproves this theory. Even if the 28 bus didn’t arrive until 9:00 a.m. each day, there were still 1,725 minutes of potential

-9- 1 instruction time remaining per week. (Doc. 77 at 15.) E.O.’s IEP only provided for 1,170 2 minutes of special education and related services per week. (Id.) Therefore, Oskowis’s 3 argument that E.O. was deprived of a FAPE was baseless. 4 In his response to the District’s motion, Oskowis contends that Count III should be 5 deemed non-frivolous because the ALJs failed to clearly indicate, in the administrative 6 orders denying his earlier complaints concerning the late bus, that the orders were final 7 judgments. (Doc. 128-1 at 7-9.) But this argument misses the point—Oskowis has not 8 identified any objective reason why he could have reasonably hoped to prevail on this 9 claim. 10 Finally, Oskowis also argues that, in general, his claims couldn’t have been 11 frivolous because the District filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings at 12 the outset of the case (Doc. 38), this motion was stricken due to the District’s failure to 13 meet-and-confer with him before filing it (Doc. 61), and the District thereafter declined to 14 refile it. (Doc. 128-1 at 4-7.) According to Oskowis, “the District’s failure to refile their 15 12(c) Motion is in itself a clear indication that [the] District was acknowledging through 16 inaction that the . . . Amended Complaint actually had claim(s) on which relief could be 17 granted.” (Id. at 6-7.) But there are all sorts of legitimate tactical reasons why the District 18 could have concluded the most efficient way to dispose of Oskowis’s frivolous claims, 19 after its Rule 12(c) motion was stricken, was to proceed to summary judgment. Indeed, 20 the order granting Oskowis’s motion to strike the Rule 12(c) motion noted that the “volume 21 and substance” of the parties’ early motions was “very concerning to the Court in that they 22 are highly indicative of . . . the parties’ general inability to engage in good faith discussions 23 prior to seeking judicial intervention.” (Doc. 61 at 1 n.1.) 24 Having determined the action was frivolous, the Court next considers whether 25 Oskowis brought the action for an improper purpose. IDEA’s improper-purpose prong 26 “comes from another well-established Federal law: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,” 27 R.P., 631 F.3d at 1124, so Rule 11(b) governs the Court’s analysis, C.W., 784 F.3d at 1248. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) “gives examples of improper purposes, including ‘to

- 10 - 1 harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.’” C.W., 2 784 F.3d at 1244. “An improper purpose is tested by objective standards and may be found 3 where a motion or paper, other than a complaint, is filed in the context of a persistent 4 pattern of clearly abusive litigation activity.” Id. at 1248-49 (citations and internal 5 quotation marks omitted). 6 The Court agrees with the District that Oskowis brought this action for the improper 7 purposes of harassing the District and driving up litigation costs. Over the past nine years, 8 Oskowis has initiated 43 separate legal actions against the District. Although it is true, as 9 Oskowis points out in his response, that a handful of those actions resulted in rulings in 10 Oskowis’s favor (Doc. 128-1 at 1-2, 14-15), the overall pattern is one of excessive 11 litigiousness. More important, in this action, Oskowis advanced frivolous, indefensible 12 claims and consistently exhibited harassing litigation tactics. For example, Oskowis filed 13 five motions to strike. (Docs. 21, 32, 39, 88, 110.) “[M]otions to strike often needlessly 14 extend litigation . . . [and] are generally disfavored.” McAllister v. Adecco USA Inc., 2017 15 WL 11151051, *2 (D. Haw. 2017) (citation omitted). Oskowis also opposed the District’s 16 request for a 10-day extension to file a reply in support of its motion for summary 17 judgment. (Doc. 73.) 18 Oskowis’s most blatant gamesmanship occurred with respect to the District’s 19 motion for attorneys’ fees. On April 24, 2019, the Court issued an order holding that the 20 District couldn’t move for attorneys’ fees until a final judgment was entered. (Doc. 101.) 21 In response, the District moved to dismiss its counterclaims so there could be a final 22 judgment. (Doc. 104.) In response, Oskowis stated he would “consent to the dismissal of 23 the District’s counterclaims, if the District’s counterclaims [were] dismissed with 24 prejudice.” (Doc. 105 at 2.) Oskowis explained that he was “concerned if the District fails 25 to prevail to collect attorney fees under Rule 54 and that the current counterclaims are 26 dismissed without prejudice, that the District can pursue the current counterclaims for 27 attorney fees again either in federal or state court.” (Id.) The Court considered Oskowis’s 28 concerns and dismissed the District’s counterclaims with prejudice, but specifically noted

- 11 - 1 in its dismissal order that the District could still file a motion for attorneys’ fees “[w]ithin 2 14 days of entry of judgment.” (Doc. 107.) After the District timely filed such a motion, 3 Oskowis moved to strike, arguing that the Court had “granted [his] request that the 4 District’s counterclaims be dismissed with prejudice,” which “effectively precludes the 5 District from seeking attorney’s fees and costs.” (Doc. 110 at 1-2.) In hindsight, Oskowis’s 6 offer to consent to dismissal with prejudice appears to have been an attempt to trick the 7 District into agreeing to seek dismissal, so that Oskowis could then argue the with- 8 prejudice dismissal precluded the District from recovering attorneys’ fees against him. 9 In sum, Oskowis’s tactics in litigating this case demonstrate he brought this action 10 for the improper purposes of harassing the District and driving up litigation costs. 11 3. Reasonableness Of Attorney Fees 12 The District seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $47,627.54 for defending this 13 action and seeking attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 133 at 7.) Pursuant to the Court’s June 24, 2019 14 order, the District provided the Court with an electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet 15 “containing an itemized statement of legal services with all information required by Local 16 Rule 54.2(e)(1).” (Doc. 107 at 2.) In response, Oskowis indicated in the spreadsheet his 17 objections to each contested entry. The District then provided responses to Oskowis’s 18 objections and voluntarily reduced some of the entries. The final version of the spreadsheet 19 is provided as an attachment to this order. 20 “The burden of establishing entitlement to an attorneys’ fees award lies solely with 21 the claimant. . . . Where the documentation is inadequate, the district court is free to reduce 22 an applicant’s fee award accordingly.” Trustees of Directors Guild of Am.-Producer 23 Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 427 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of 24 reh’g, 255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000); see also LRCiv. 54.2(e)(2) (“If the time descriptions 25 are incomplete, or if such descriptions fail to adequately describe the service rendered, the 26 court may reduce the award accordingly.”). 27 The Court has reviewed each contested billing entry. Rather than address each one 28 individually, which would unnecessarily lengthen this opinion (there are more than 200

- 12 - 1 contested entries), the Court has organized the entries into categories. 2 a. Duplicate Time Entries 3 Oskowis identifies several time entries that he argues are duplicates.4 The District 4 acknowledges that many of those time entries are duplicates, due to “an error in 5 transcription from the billing statement to the Excel spread sheet.” (Doc. 133 at 4.) The 6 Court will not award fees for the duplicates. 7 The District has indicated that the remaining contested entries, reference numbers 8 91-92, 882, 1034, and 1039, are multiple entries for tasks that were done over a continuing 9 period of time, rather than duplicates. Specifically, reference numbers 882, 1034, and 1039 10 all relate to drafting the motion for summary judgment and the reply, which the District 11 argues it “researched, drafted, and revised over the course of several days if not weeks.” 12 (Id. at 5.) The Court is satisfied those entries aren’t duplicates, so it won’t remove them as 13 such. 14 b. Excessive Or Unnecessary Time Entries 15 Oskowis objects to 15 entries as “excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary.” 16 (Doc. 128-1 at 12.)5 He argues that certain individuals “never billed for less than 0.2 of an 17 hour, even for those time entries that would reasonably take less than 0.1 of an hour (or 6 18 minutes) to do so.” (Id.) 19 The District has voluntarily deleted reference number 970. The District has also 20 voluntarily reduced reference numbers 12, 27, 58, 70, 216, 217, 249, 840, 908, and 1062. 21 The District’s reduction of each of these reference numbers (most by .1) is sufficient. As 22 for two other challenged entries—reference numbers 225 and 609—the District notes these 23 entries had “already been discounted by 50 percent.” The District’s reduction of the entries 24 by half is sufficient. 25 Finally, the District contends that reference numbers 90 (Review Notice of Service 26 4 The time entries at issue are reference numbers 26, 91-92, 373, 391, 399, 404-406, 411-413, 421-423, 442, 451, 461, 529, 544, 619, 621, 634, 735, 767, 830, 864, 867, 882, 27 899, 901, 909, 1034, 1039, 1043-1044, and 1048. 5 28 The time entries at issue are reference numbers 12, 27, 58, 70, 90, 158, 216, 217, 225, 249, 609, 840, 908, 970, and 1062.

- 13 - 1 of Amended Complaint: .2 hours) and 158 (E-mail M. Oskowis regarding scheduling: .2 2 hours) aren’t excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. The Court agrees that these 3 fees are reasonable. 4 c. Vague Time Entries 5 Oskowis argues that more than 200 of the District’s time entries are “[l]acking 6 appropriate detail” pursuant to LRCiv 54.2(e)(2). The Court has reviewed each entry for 7 sufficiency under the local rules. 8 First, there are 15 entries related to telephone calls or telephone conferences that fail 9 to provide sufficient details. The Local Rules provide that, when seeking attorneys’ fees 10 for telephone conferences, the “time entry must identify all participants and the reason for 11 the telephone call.” LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(A). Fourteen of the telephone entries don’t include 12 the subject matter of the conversation6 and one fails to identify the counterparty.7 The 13 Court will not award fees for these 15 entries. 14 Next, there are approximately 40 entries related to drafting or reviewing emails or 15 letters that fail to provide sufficient details. Although the local rules don’t provide an 16 explanatory example for how emails or letters should be documented in an attorneys’ fee 17 motion, the closest parallel is telephone conferences. See LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(A). Thus, the 18 Court will not grant attorneys’ fees for email/letter time entries that don’t identify to whom 19 the email/letter was sent8 or the subject matter of the email/letter.9 20 6 Those entries are reference numbers 8, 26, 28, 32, 168, 459, 599, 603, 606, 619, 21 623, 626, 673, and 863. 7 22 That entry is reference number 1016. 8 The email/letter time entries without a listed recipient are reference numbers 716, 23 924, and 998. 9 24 The email/letter time entries without the subject matter listed are reference numbers 1, 25, 30, 46, 48, 50, 52-55, 64, 93, 137, 286, 395, 504, 592, 605, 620, 624, 627-628, 752, 25 798, 805, 809, 826, 868, 875-876, 883-884, 890, 898, 920, 1040, 1061, and 1089. Some of these entries were voluntarily deleted by the District. As to the remaining entries, 26 although the District argues that some of the emails and letters are protected by attorney- client privilege, the District could have indicated the subject matter of the emails/letters 27 without violating that privilege. Stein v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., 2014 WL 12695385, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (“The attorney-client privilege attaches to the content of the 28 communications between the client and attorney, not the fact or general topic of the confidential communication.”).

- 14 - 1 There are approximately 40 entries related to reviewing various documents. In 30 2 of those entries, the District indicated that it reviewed various documents filed with the 3 Court or otherwise provided sufficient detail regarding exactly what was reviewed. See, 4 e.g., reference number 166 (“Review Joint Statement and Oskowis’ response”); reference 5 number 891 (“Review joint report and good faith settlement talks”); reference number 939 6 (“Read MO’s due process complaint”). The Court will award attorneys’ fees for those 7 entries.10 The Court deems insufficient, however, those entries in which the District didn’t 8 make clear what exactly it reviewed.11 9 The largest category of time entries relates to drafting, revising, and editing various 10 documents filed with the Court. This category includes 105 entries. When seeking 11 attorneys’ fees for preparing pleadings or other papers, LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(C) requires that 12 the time entry “identify the pleading, paper or other document prepared and the activities 13 associated with its preparation.” Each of the 105 entries indicates the document being 14 prepared and associated task (i.e., drafting, revising, editing, finalizing). The Court will 15 therefore award attorneys’ fees for those tasks.12 16 Finally, there are some miscellaneous time entries. For example, there are four 17 entries related to fact development. Three of those entries—reference numbers 117, 239, 18 and 865—specify the document for which the fact investigation was being conducted. The 19 Court will award attorneys’ fees for those entries. However, the Court won’t award 20 attorneys’ fees for reference number 704, which merely states “strategy and fact finding.” 21 Next, there are three entries related to research. LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(B) requires that those 22 10 Those entries are reference numbers 22, 166, 311, 327, 330, 369, 371, 591, 602, 23 607, 608, 611, 618, 622, 625, 635, 686, 810, 819, 827, 851, 853, 854, 891, 900, 906, 917, 939, 973, and 984. 24 11 Those entries are reference numbers 84, 361-362, 523, 598, 703, 717, 731, 907, 928, and 1054. The District has already voluntarily deleted some of those. 25 12 Those entries are reference numbers 20, 42, 59, 67, 76, 79, 80, 82, 96, 102, 116, 26 139, 141, 143, 147, 153, 160, 113, 164, 174, 176, 177, 182, 186, 198, 209, 232, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243, 248, 257, 258, 259, 263, 372, 376, 402, 414, 443, 488, 490, 494, 498, 524, 27 530, 531, 536, 539, 550, 541, 581, 584, 604, 672, 693, 733, 734, 751, 768, 796, 797, 807, 849, 888, 889, 922, 948, 951, 954, 961, 962, 963, 969, 971, 972, 974, 975, 976, 979, 986, 28 987, 988, 993, 995, 996, 1020, 1027, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1047, 1049, 1059, 1060, 1071, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1088, 1092, and 1094.

- 15 - 1 entries “identify the specific legal issue researched and, if appropriate, . . . identify the 2 pleading or document the preparation of which occasioned the conduct of the research.” 3 None of the research entries “identify the specific legal issue researched.”13 And reference 4 numbers 305, 307, 328, 385, and 866 are either too vague or do not make clear what exactly 5 was done. Accordingly, the Court won’t award attorneys’ fees for those time entries. 6 d. Other Objections 7 Oskowis objects to several entries as “block billing.”14 The Court will not reduce 8 the fees based on this objection. First, to the extent these entries were deficient for other 9 reasons, the Court has already addressed those deficiencies and reduced the fees 10 accordingly. Second, as the District indicated in some of its responses, many of the entries 11 at issue were not actually block-billing. Third, Oskowis has not pointed to a rule or any 12 case law categorically prohibiting block-billing—although the Ninth Circuit has stated that 13 “block billing makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on particular 14 activities,” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007), because the 15 entries provided sufficient detail regarding the various tasks that were performed, the fact 16 that the tasks are included in a single entry does not render the entries deficient. 17 Oskowis also objects to several entries on the basis that “[i]nter-office 18 communications should not be billed.”15 He contends “[c]ommunications within a law 19 firm, regarding the case, whether personal, phone, or email should be part of doing business 20 and thus part of the firm[’]s overhead.” (Doc. 128-1 at 13.) The Court rejects this 21 objection. Oskowis does not cite any rule or case law in support of this objection and the 22 Court finds this is a proper task for attorneys to bill. 23 24 13 25 Those entries are reference numbers 255, 1032, and 1072. 14 Those entries are reference numbers 57, 63, 85, 101, 116, 136, 139, 163, 166, 193, 26 200, 213, 234, 383, 432, 437, 478, 491, 493, 496, 524, 552, 553, 556, 586, 591, 598, 635, 672, 686, 751, 876, 891, 906, 931, 951, 953, 965, 968, 976, 987, 989, 990, 991, 994, 1034, 27 1037, 1039, 1074, and 1091. 15 28 Those entries are reference numbers 218, 360, 370, 382, 496, 610, 799, 877, 930, 942, 943, 945, 951, 978, 983, and 1053.

- 16 - 1 e. Total Award 2 After adjusting the amount sought consistent with the reductions identified above, 3 the Court awards the District $41,244.38.16 4 II. Oskowis’s Motion To Review Taxation Of Costs 5 On July 25, 2019, the District filed an amended bill of costs seeking $574.70. (Doc. 6 119.) These costs include “[f]ees for service of summons and subpoena” ($177.50) and 7 “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the 8 case” ($397.20). (Id. at 1.) The District attached corresponding receipts. (Id. at 3-4.) 9 Oskowis filed objections to the amended bill of costs. (Doc. 120.) His objections 10 fall into two categories: (1) the District’s alleged costs were not associated with Oskowis’s 11 affirmative claims and were instead only associated with the District’s counterclaims, 12 which the District voluntarily dismissed, and (2) under LRCiv. 54.1(e)(3), a party may not 13 seek deposition costs “associated with a video recording,” so the District cannot seek 14 subpoena or transcript fees related to the video-recorded deposition. (Id. at 3-5.) 15 On August 21, 2019, the clerk taxed costs in the amount of $574.70 for the District. 16 (Doc. 123.) 17 Oskowis moves for the Court to (1) “review the action of the Clerk in taxing costs, 18 on the ground that the nature and amount of costs taxed for service of summons and 19 subpoena, and printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in 20 the case are incorrect and contrary to law,” and (2) “direct[] the Clerk to re-tax and adjust 21 the costs.” (Doc. 129.) The District has filed a response. (Doc. 132.) 22 The motion will be denied. First, that the deposition was used in connection with 23 the District’s counterclaims seeking attorneys’ fees is not a valid basis to object to the 24 deposition costs. Recoverable costs in an IDEA case are those set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1920. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 297-98 (2006). 26 That statute permits a court to tax as costs “[f]ees of the clerk and marshal,” which the 27 16 This number was generated by reducing the total of the adjusted fees, $54,992.50, 28 by 25 percent, which is what the District had agreed to do in its motion and reply. (Doc. 124-2 at 12; Doc. 133 at 7 n.1.)

- 17 - 1 Local Rules have clarified covers service fees, LRCiv. 54.1(e)(1), as well as “[f]ees for 2 printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case,” 28 3 U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(2). Neither 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) nor 28 U.S.C. § 1920 limits 4 costs to those incurred in connection with defending against the opposing party’s claims. 5 Here, the costs the District is seeking could be characterized as incurred in connection with 6 litigating the District’s counterclaims or in seeking attorneys’ fees. Oskowis has not cited, 7 and the Court is not aware of, any authority prohibiting the Court from awarding such costs. 8 Thus, the Court will not deny the District’s request for costs on that basis. 9 The Court also rejects Oskowis’s second objection—that the District’s deposition 10 costs are not recoverable because they were incurred in connection with a videotaped 11 deposition. LRCiv. 54.1(e)(3), the provision addressing taxable deposition costs, states 12 that “[c]osts associated with a video recording are not taxable.” Notably, it does not state 13 that all costs associated with a videotaped deposition are not taxable. The logical 14 interpretation of that provision is that costs incurred in connection with a videotaped 15 deposition, other than those associated with the actual recording of the deposition, remain 16 taxable. The District provided in its response that it contacted the deposition reporting 17 service to determine why the invoice states “Rate Reflects Videotaped Deposition” and 18 learned it was charged 25 cents more per page for transcription because the deposition was 19 videotaped. (Doc. 132 at 3.) Thus, the District has agreed to decrease the costs it is seeking 20 by $17.50, which is equal to the number of pages of the transcript (70) multiplied by 25 21 cents. This seems reasonable to the Court, and Oskowis chose not to file a reply 22 challenging this concession. 23 Thus, the clerk of court is directed to amend its taxation order to tax costs for the 24 District in the amount of $557.20. 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 …

- 18 - 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 (1) The District’s amended motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 124) is granted in 3 part and denied in part; 4 (2) Oskowis’s motion to review taxation of costs (Doc. 129) is granted in part 5 and denied in part; 6 (3) Oskowis must pay the District $41,244.38 in attorneys’ fees; and 7 (4) The clerk of court is directed to amend its taxation order to tax costs for the 8 District in the amount of $557.20. 9 Dated this 9th day of October, 2019. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

- 19 - Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of the service is adequate. Review email from G. Staton and Lacking appropriate detail. Moreover, attorney work 1 4/19/2017 PMH respond (2X). 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) product. Review emails from Georgia Staton 2 4/19/2017 ADI regarding new Complaint. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Review acceptance of service; email 4 4/20/2017 PMH District. 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 5 4/20/2017 ADI Review venue requirement. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 7 4/24/2017 PMH Review complaint/file. 1.00 $ 200.00 N $ 200.00 The description of the service is adequate. Telephone conference with G. Staton Lacking appropriate detail. Moreover, attorney work 8 4/24/2017 PMH and G. Lewis. 0.60 $ 120.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) product. Review service of process and 9 4/24/2017 ADI authorization policy. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Excessive, redundant or The District has 12 4/25/2017 ADI Draft Notice of Appearance. 0.40 $ 70.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 17.50 Telephone conference with Kacey Gregson regarding outstanding 13 4/25/2017 ADI decisions. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Draft letter to Matthew Oskowis 14 4/25/2017 ADI regarding assignment of case. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review docket and Magistrate Judge 15 4/25/2017 ADI jurisdiction consent form. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50

16 4/25/2017 ADI Review FRCP 19 (Required Joinder). 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Telephone conference with M. Remus regarding service of 17 4/25/2017 PMH complaint. 0.20 $ 40.00 N $ 40.00 18 4/25/2017 ADI Review FRCP 13 (Counterclaims). 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25

19 4/25/2017 PMH Review Trust Documents and sign. 0.20 $ 20.00 Y $ 20.00 The description of the Lacking appropriate detail. service provided is 20 4/26/2017 ADI Draft Answer to Complaint. 0.80 $ 140.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) adequate. $ 140.00 Draft letter to Plaintiff Parent regarding Waiver of Service and 21 4/27/2017 ADI Defect of Complaint. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 The description of the Lacking appropriate detail. service provided is 22 4/27/2017 PMH Review answer. 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) adequate. $ 80.00 Revise letter to Plaintiff Parent 23 4/27/2017 ADI regarding waiver and conferral. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 Review letter to M. Oskowis 24 4/27/2017 PMH regarding notice. 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00

The description of the service provided is Review email from M. Remus and Lacking appropriate detail. adequate. Moreover, 25 4/27/2017 PMH letter. 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) attorney client privilege The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Telephone conference with M. removed from this excel 26 4/27/2017 PMH Wright. 0.30 $ 60.00 N Duplicate of no charge #33 spread sheet.

Excessive, redundant or The District has 27 4/27/2017 PMH Review and sign waiver of service. 0.20 $ 40.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 20.00

The description of the service provided is Telephone conference with M. Lacking appropriate detail. adequate. Moreover, 28 4/27/2017 PMH Remus. 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) attorney client privilege. Review Order discouraging 12(b) 29 4/27/2017 ADI Motions. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

The description of the service provided is Review email from Michael Remus Lacking appropriate detail. adequate. Moreover, 30 4/27/2017 ADI and departure letter. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) attorney client privilege.

Facts investigation regarding service, 31 4/27/2017 ADI venue, counterclaim and joinder 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00

The description of the service provided is Telephone Conference with Lacking appropriate detail. adequate. Moreover, 32 4/27/2017 ADI Matthew Wright 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) attorney client privilege.

Review complaint and Orders of Dismissal in 17C‐DP‐044‐ADE, 17C‐ 37 4/28/2017 ADI DP‐048‐ADE, and 17C‐DP‐053‐ADE 0.80 $ 140.00 N $ 140.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Review Complaint and Order of 38 4/28/2017 ADI Dismissal in 16C‐DP‐066‐ADE. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Review Complaint and Order of 39 4/28/2017 ADI Dismissal in 17C‐DP‐013‐ADE. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Letter to Oskowis with Waiver of 40 4/28/2017 PMH Service. 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00 Review 34 CFR 300.577 related to award of attorneys' fees against a 41 4/28/2017 ADI parent. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 The description of the service is adequate. Lacking appropriate detail. Morever, this charge has 42 4/28/2017 ADI Draft Counterclaim. 2.50 $ 218.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) been cut in half. $ 218.75 43 4/28/2017 PMH Review draft counterclaim. 0.40 $ 40.00 Y $ 40.00 The description of the service provided is adequate. Moreover, attorney client privilege. Furthermore, this entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 46 5/4/2017 ADI Draft letter to Superintendent 0.20 $ 17.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent.

Review Federal #1 Order regarding 47 5/5/2017 ADI ALJ delay in issuance of decision. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 The description of the service is adequate. Because Plaintiff was a party to the email Review email from M. Oskowis and Lacking appropriate detail. reviewed, he is aware of 48 5/5/2017 PMH respond. 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) its contents. Review email from Matt Oskowis 49 5/5/2017 ADI regarding conferral. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 The description of the service provided is adequate. Moreover, attorney client privilege. Furthermore, this entry Revise and finalize letter to Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 50 5/5/2017 ADI Superintendent 0.60 $ 52.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Ms. Fabian believes the date of this entry must have been transcribed incorrectly because the motion for summary judgment was not yet pending. Regardless, the Revise motions for summary Legal representative not District has deleted this 51 5/8/2017 VF judgment. 1.20 $ 210.00 N engaged at this time. entry. 0 $ ‐ Lacking appropriate detail. The District has deleted 52 5/8/2017 PMH Review and revise letters. 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐ Review email from G. Staton firm Lacking appropriate detail. 53 5/9/2017 PMH and respond. 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) Work product privilege Lacking appropriate detail. The District has deleted 54 5/9/2017 ADI Review email. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐

The description of the service is adequate. Review email and respond to Lacking appropriate detail. Moreover, it involves 55 5/12/2017 PMH District. 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) attorney client privilege.

Draft letter to Matthew Oskowis 56 5/12/2017 ADI regarding dates/times for conferral. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 The description is specific enough to determine whether a reasonable Review Waiver of Service; telephone amount of time was 57 5/16/2017 PMH conference with M. Remus. 0.30 $ 60.00 N Block billing billed. $ 60.00

Excessive, redundant or The District has 58 5/16/2017 PMH Sign Notice of Appearance. 0.20 $ 40.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 20.00 Finalize Notice of Appearance for Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 59 5/16/2017 ADI filing. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) service is adequate $ 35.00 Review Notice of Service and filing of 60 5/16/2017 ADI Waiver of Summons. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Review local rules and draft judge 61 5/16/2017 ADI election form. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge All of the activities in this billing relate to preparing Review file, court order, OSC against for a conference with Mr. M. Oskowis; prepare for conferral Oskowis. Therefore it is meeting with M. Oskowis; not impermissible block 63 5/17/2017 PMH conference with M. Oskowis. 0.70 $ 140.00 N Block billing billing. $ 140.00 The description of the services is adequate. Counsel finished her review of the amended Review emails and amendment; Lacking appropriate detail. complaint and then 64 5/17/2017 PMH email district. 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) notified her client. Review M. Oskowis' amended 65 5/17/2017 PMH complaint. 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00

Telephone conference with Matt Oskowis regarding meet and confer 66 5/17/2017 ADI over 12(b) dismissal issue. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Because Plaintiff reviewed the response the District sent him regarding the first amended complaint, Draft response to Plaintiff regarding Lacking appropriate detail. Plaintiff is aware of the 67 5/17/2017 ADI first Amended Complaint. 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) details of this work. $ 52.50 Review proposed first Amended 68 5/17/2017 ADI Complaint submitted by Plaintiff. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Review Petitioner's request to Excessive, redundant or The District has 70 5/18/2017 PMH transfer from Magistrate. 0.20 $ 40.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 20.00 Review latest filings from Plaintiff (i.e., judge election form) and court 71 5/18/2017 ADI docket entry. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Review M. Oskowis' Motion to 73 5/24/2017 PMH Amend. 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00 Review Petitioner's Motion for Leave 75 5/29/2017 PMH to Amend. 0.80 $ 160.00 N $ 160.00 The description of the Draft Answer to First Amended Lacking appropriate detail. service provided is 76 5/30/2017 ADI Complaint. 3.00 $ 525.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) adequate. $ 525.00 77 5/30/2017 ADI Research 12(f) Motions to Strike. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 78 5/30/2017 ADI Review Complaint. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 The description of the Lacking appropriate detail. service provided is 79 5/31/2017 ADI Revise Answer to Complaint. 1.00 $ 175.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) adequate. $ 175.00 The description of the Draft Defendant's Affirmative Lacking appropriate detail. service provided is 80 5/31/2017 ADI Defenses. 0.60 $ 105.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) adequate $ 105.00

Draft jurisdictional section and 81 5/31/2017 ADI background section of Counterclaim. 0.70 $ 61.25 Y $ 61.25 The description of the service provided is adequate. Furthermore, this entry has already Draft Prayer for Relief and revise Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 82 5/31/2017 ADI Counterclaim. 2.00 $ 175.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. $ 175.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The District has deleted 84 6/2/2017 PMH Review electronic filing. 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐ This entry was for the review of the answer and amended counterclaim and associated activities. Thus, it is not impermissible block billing. Furthermore, this Review emails, answer and entry has already been 85 6/6/2017 PMH counterclaim. 0.20 $ 20.00 Y Block billing halved. $ 20.00 87 6/7/2017 PMH Review Amended Complaint. 0.50 $ 100.00 N $ 100.00 Review Notice of Service of Excessive, redundant or 90 6/9/2017 ADI Amended Complaint. 0.20 $ 35.00 N otherwise unnecessary. $ 35.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge

This is not a duplicative entry. Counsel was simply continuing her review of the first amended complaint. A total of 1.7 hours was spent reviewing Plaintiff's 91 6/12/2017 PMH Review revised Amended Complaint. 0.80 $ 160.00 N Duplicate of #87 first amended complaint. $ 160.00 92 6/13/2017 PMH Review Amended Complaint. 0.40 $ 80.00 N Duplicate of #87 See above $ 80.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The District has deleted 93 6/13/2017 EAP Review emails, reply 0.30 $ 58.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐ Review Answer to First Amended Block billng. Lacking Complaint and Counterclaim and appropriate detail. LRCiv The description of 96 6/14/2017 PMH redraft. 1.00 $ 100.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) services is inadequate. $ 100.00 Review Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Court's Order 100 6/15/2017 ADI granting Motion. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and calculate 101 6/15/2017 ADI extension for filing Answer. 0.20 $ 35.00 N Block billing This is not block billing. $ 35.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 102 6/16/2017 ADI Revise Counterclaim. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is inadequate. $ 26.25 103 6/19/2017 ADI Review Answer and Counterclaim. 1.20 $ 105.00 Y $ 105.00

Review transcript from previous due process hearing regarding plaintiff's 104 6/19/2017 ADI comments about Trina Spencer. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 Block billing. Lacking This is not block billing as Review revised Answer and appropriate detail. LRCiv both entries relate to the 116 6/20/2017 PMH Counterclaim and revise both. 1.30 $ 260.00 N 54.2(e)(2) same document. $ 260.00 Facts investigation regarding Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 117 6/20/2017 ADI responses in Answer. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 35.00 Review Revisions to Answer and 118 6/20/2017 PMH Counterclaim. 0.50 $ 50.00 Y $ 50.00

Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 regarding timeline for answering a 131 6/27/2017 ADI countercliam and calculate deadline. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Review Order Setting Rule 16 132 6/30/2017 ADI Scheduling Conference. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Review local rules regarding Motions to Strike and time to file response; 133 6/30/2017 ADI calculate deadline for filing response 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 134 6/30/2017 PMH Review Oskowis' Motion to Strike. 0.80 $ 80.00 Y $ 80.00

135 7/3/2017 ADI Review Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00

There are only two entries for a short period Review Rule 16 Scheduling Order and of time, which would 136 7/5/2017 PMH M. Oskowis' email. 0.40 $ 80.00 N Block billing reasonably take .4 hours. $ 80.00 The description of services is adequate. Plaintiff was a party to Lacking appropriate detail. this email and can review 137 7/5/2017 PMH Email M. Oskowis. 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) how long it was.

Review email from Plaintiff regarding scheduling Rule 16 Conference and 138 7/5/2017 ADI status of settlement negotiations. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

The description of services is adequate and is not impermisslbe block Block billing. Lacking billing. Furthermore, the Review and finalize Answer and appropriate detail. LRCiv entry has already been 139 7/10/2017 PMH Counterclaim. 0.40 $ 40.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 40.00 Review cases cited by Plaintiff in 140 7/10/2017 ADI Motion to Strike. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Draft Response to Plaintiff's Motion Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 141 7/10/2017 ADI to Strike. 0.90 $ 78.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 78.75 Review Responses to Plaintiff's Motions to Strike Affirmative 142 7/10/2017 ADI Defenses in Fed. #3. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. had already been 143 7/11/2017 ADI Revise Response to Motion to Strike. 1.00 $ 87.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 87.50 Review Plaitniff's Answer to 146 7/12/2017 ADI Defendant's Counterclaim. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Finalize draft Response to Plaintiff's Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 147 7/12/2017 ADI Motion to Strike. 0.60 $ 52.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 52.50

Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding availability for discovery scheduling conference pursuant to Court Order 149 7/13/2017 ADI and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00

Review letter regarding conference 150 7/13/2017 PMH meet and confer dates. 0.20 $ 40.00 N $ 40.00 151 7/13/2017 PMH Review Oskowis' Answer. 0.60 $ 60.00 Y $ 60.00

152 7/13/2017 PMH Review Response to Motion to Strike 0.50 $ 50.00 Y $ 50.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Finalize for filing with the court the has already been District's Response to Plaintiff's Lacking appropriate detail. discounted by 50 153 7/13/2017 ADI Motion to Strike. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent.. $ 43.75

Review Attorney Ivan's Citations and 154 7/13/2017 TM Shepardize cases in Motion to Strike. 0.50 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 Review proposed Joint Case 157 7/14/2017 PMH Management Plan and revise. 1.00 $ 200.00 N $ 200.00 This entry is not excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary. It involved not only writing the words in the email to Plaintiff but also E‐mail M. Oskowis regarding Excessive, redundant or thinking about what 158 7/18/2017 PMH scheduling. 0.20 $ 40.00 N otherwise unnecessary. should be in that email. $ 40.00 159 7/19/2017 PMH Review conference meeting dates. 0.20 $ 40.00 N $ 40.00 Draft Joint Proposed Case Management Plan ( Defendant's portion) pursuant to Court's Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 160 7/21/2017 ADI Conference. 4.00 $ 700.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 700.00 Review Rule 26 regarding initial disclosure obligations in relation to 161 7/21/2017 ADI Counterclaim. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00

Review Rules 16 and 26 regarding discovery of electronically stored information and assertions of 162 7/21/2017 ADI privilege or protected work product. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 The description of services is adequate. It is Revise draft Joint Proposed Case not impermissible block Management Plan and email to Block billing. Lacking billing as all entries relate Plaintiff regarding same in appropriate detail. LRCiv to the joint case 163 7/24/2017 ADI anticipation of conference. 1.40 $ 245.00 N 54.2(e)(2) management plan. $ 245.00 Review and finalize proposed Joint Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 164 7/25/2017 PMH Case Management Plan. 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 60.00

Draft name and contact information portion of Defendant's Initial 165 7/25/2017 DA Discovery pleading. 0.30 $ 15.75 Y $ 15.75 The description of services is adequate. It is not impermissible block Block billing. Lacking billing as all entries relate Review Joint Statement and Oskowis' appropriate detail. LRCiv to the joint case 166 7/26/2017 PMH response. 1.00 $ 200.00 N 54.2(e)(2) management plan. $ 200.00

Telephone Conference with M. 167 7/26/2017 PMH Oskowis regarding Joint Statement. 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of services is adequate. Conference with T. Alley and M. Lacking appropriate detail. Moreover, attorney client 168 7/26/2017 PMH Remus. 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) privilege

Review Plaintiff's proposed revisions and insertions into the draft Joint 169 7/26/2017 ADI Proposed Case Management Plan. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00

Telephone conference with Matthew Oskowis to discuss Joint Proposed 170 7/26/2017 ADI Case Management Plan. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 The description of the services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Draft Defendant's Initial Disclosure Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 174 7/28/2017 ADI pleading. 1.50 $ 131.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 131.25 Revise Defendant's portion of draft Joint Proposed Case Management Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 175 8/1/2017 ADI Plan. 0.50 $ 87.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 87.50 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Draft Notice of Service of Initial Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 176 8/1/2017 ADI Disclosures. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 26.25 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 177 8/4/2017 PMH Review and revise answer. 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 100.00 Review for documents to add to 178 8/4/2017 PMH answer. 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00

Revise Defendant's Initial Disclosures with remaining witness address and 179 8/4/2017 ADI phone contact information. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 182 8/5/2017 PMH Review and revise Joint Statement. 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 80.00

Review files for initial disclosures and identify documentation in support of claim for attornes' fees to 184 8/7/2017 ADI be copied. 0.80 $ 70.00 Y $ 70.00 Review files and identify documentation for initial disclosures to support counterclaim for 185 8/8/2017 ADI attorneys's fees. 1.60 $ 140.00 Y $ 140.00 Finalize review of remaining files and identification of documents in Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 186 8/8/2017 ADI support of claim. 1.20 $ 105.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 105.00 Review and finalize initial disclosures (documents and formal 187 8/8/2017 ADI correspondences). 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 Compile and Organize E‐mails for 188 8/8/2017 TM Counter Claim. 0.70 $ 36.75 Y $ 36.75 Review and finalize emails to be released with Defendant's Initial 192 8/9/2017 ADI Disclosures. 0.80 $ 70.00 Y $ 70.00

The attorney fee and cost computation are part of the initial disclosure and thus this is not impermissible block Finalize Attorney Fee and cost billing. Furthermore, this computations and initial disclosure entry has already been 193 8/9/2017 ADI pleading and sign same. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 17.50 The description of services is adequate. Revise and finalize for filing Notice of Furthermore, this entry Service of Defendant's Initial Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 198 8/10/2017 ADI Disclosures. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 17.50 Both entries go to the same activity ‐ finalizing Finalize Proposed Joint Case the case management Management Plan for Plaintiff's final plan. Thus, this entry is review and approval and email to not impermissible block 200 8/14/2017 ADI Plaintiff regarding same. 0.60 $ 105.00 N Block billing billing. $ 105.00 Revise draft Joint Proposed Case Management Plan with Plaintiff's 201 8/14/2017 ADI insertions. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge

Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding receipt of revisions to Joint Proposed 202 8/14/2017 ADI Case Management Plan. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00

Review Plaintiff's email with revisions to Joint Case Management 203 8/14/2017 ADI Plan and incorporate therein. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review email from Rebecca Vess regarding current contact information and willingness to assist 204 8/14/2017 ADI District. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50

Review pleadings and draft letter to Plaintiff regarding confirmation of 205 8/16/2017 ADI current mailing address. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00

E‐mail follow‐up with Plaintiff regarding approval of final Joint 206 8/17/2017 ADI Proposed Case Management Plan. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Draft letter to Superintendent regarding submission of Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 207 8/18/2017 ADI and current update. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding filing of Joint Proposed Case Management Plan in lieu of 208 8/18/2017 ADI approval. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 Finalize and file Joint Proposed Case Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 209 8/18/2017 ADI Management Plan. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 35.00 Review email from Plaintiff regarding approval of Joint Proposed Case Management Plan and election to 210 8/18/2017 ADI file. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Compile necessary documentation for creation of pretrial scheduling conference notebook and potential oral argument on Palintiff's Motion 211 8/23/2017 ADI to Strike. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y $ 43.75 Prepare for Pretrial Scheduling 212 8/27/2017 ADI Conference. 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00 Both entries go to the same activity ‐ participating in the pretrial scheduling conference. Thus, this Prepare for and attend Pretrial entry is not impermissible 213 8/28/2017 ADI Scheduling Conference. 1.00 $ 175.00 N Block billing block billing. $ 175.00 Review email notice from court regarding Plaintiff's change of Excessive, redundant or The District has 216 8/29/2017 ADI physical mailing address. 0.20 $ 35.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 17.50 Review Minute Entry regarding appearance of parties for Rule 16 Excessive, redundant or The District has 217 8/29/2017 ADI Scheduling Conference. 0.20 $ 35.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 17.50

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating communications should not to the billing of the case 218 8/30/2017 PMH Conference with Attorney Ivan. 0.20 $ 40.00 N be billed. are properly billed. $ 40.00 Review strategy regarding 219 8/30/2017 PMH depositions. 0.30 $ 30.00 Y $ 30.00 Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding failure to timely serve Plaintiff's 220 8/30/2017 ADI initial disclosures on Defendant. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y $ 43.75

Review Order regarding dismissal of 222 8/31/2017 PMH some counterclaims. 0.50 $ 50.00 Y $ 50.00 Review Order regarding affirmative 223 9/1/2017 PMH defense. 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 224 9/1/2017 ADI Review Rule 16 Scheduling Order 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 This entry has already Calculate dates set forth in Excessive, redundant or been discounted by 50 225 9/1/2017 ADI Scheduling Order. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y otherwise unnecessary. percent. $ 26.25 Review Court's Order on Plaintiff's 226 9/1/2017 ADI Motion to Strike. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 227 9/8/2017 PMH Review Initial Disclosure 0.50 $ 50.00 Y $ 50.00 Review Plaintiff's email with list of 228 9/10/2017 ADI initial disclosures. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25

Follow‐up with Plaintiff regarding 229 9/10/2017 ADI receipt of initial disclosure list. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Facts investigation regarding Plaintiff's initial discovery and scope 230 9/14/2017 ADI thereof. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Revise First Amended Answer to Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 232 10/23/2017 ADI Complaint. 1.00 $ 175.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 175.00

Draft track changes to First Amended Answer to Complaint for filing 233 10/23/2017 ADI alongside Notice of Filing. 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00 These entries all go to the same activity ‐ drafting notice of filing amended Draft Notice of Filing Amended pleading ‐ and therefore Pleading after review of Local Rules do not constitute of Civil Procedure governing impermissible block 234 10/23/2017 ADI amended pleadings. 0.50 $ 87.50 N Block billing billing. $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 235 10/25/2017 PMH Review and Revise counterclaim. 1.00 $ 100.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 100.00

Study cases from 9th Circuit and 2 237 10/26/2017 EAP District Court findings on pleadings. 0.90 $ 175.50 N $ 175.50 Research regarding standards for 238 10/26/2017 EAP pleading, fees against parent. 0.80 $ 156.00 N $ 156.00 Facts investigation regarding First Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 239 10/26/2017 ADI Amended Answer. 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 52.50 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Revise First Amended Answer and Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 240 10/26/2017 ADI Counterclaim. 1.30 $ 113.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 113.75 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Finalize for filing First Amended Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 241 10/26/2017 ADI Answer and Counterclaim. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 43.75 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Review and revise Amened Answer Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 242 10/26/2017 PMH and Counterclaim. 1.00 $ 100.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 100.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Review and revise third draft of Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 243 10/26/2017 PMH counterclaim and finalize. 3.00 $ 300.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 300.00

245 11/1/2017 ADI Review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures. 0.70 $ 61.25 Y $ 61.25

Facts investigation regarding 246 11/3/2017 ADI underlying claims and case options. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Review confirmation of transfer of administrative records to federal court in underlying due process 247 11/3/2017 ADI complaints on appeal. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 248 11/5/2017 PMH Review and revise Motion to Strike. 0.50 $ 50.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 50.00

Calclulate deadline to file Response Excessive, redundant or The District has 249 11/6/2017 ADI to Motion to Strike. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry to .1 0.1 $ 8.75 250 11/6/2017 ADI Review Motion to Strike. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Facts investigation regarding Rule 11 Sanctions related to recent Motion 251 11/8/2017 ADI to Strike. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 Review Motion to Dismiss under 252 11/8/2017 PMH John's. 0.40 $ 40.00 Y $ 40.00 Research pro se representation on behalf of minor children under federal law and 9th Circuit 254 11/9/2017 ADI precedent. 1.40 $ 245.00 N $ 245.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Research related to Motion to Strike Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 255 11/10/2017 ADI Defendant's Amended Counterclaim. 1.00 $ 87.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Draft Response to Motion to Strike Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 257 11/10/2017 ADI Defendant's Amended Counterclaim. 1.50 $ 131.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 131.25 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Revise Response to Motion to Strike Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 258 11/11/2017 ADI Defendant's Amended Counterclaim. 1.00 $ 87.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 87.50 The description of services is adequate. Review Motion to Strike and Furthermore, the entry Defendant's response; revise Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 259 11/16/2017 PMH response. 1.00 $ 100.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 100.00 Finalize for filing the Response to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Strike and calendar deadline for Plaintiff to 260 11/16/2017 ADI file reply. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Facts investigation regarding oral 262 11/20/2017 ADI and written depositions. 0.60 $ 52.50 Y $ 52.50 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Review file and prepare Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 263 11/20/2017 PMH counterclaim. 0.80 $ 80.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 80.00

Research remote (i.e., telephonic or video‐conferencing) oral depositions 266 11/21/2017 ADI in federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 Review deposition schedule/Court 267 11/21/2017 PMH Order. 0.30 $ 30.00 Y $ 30.00 Review deposition requirements of 269 11/22/2017 PMH Federal Court. 0.50 $ 50.00 Y $ 50.00

Review Notice of Filing/Lodging of 282 11/30/2017 ADI Administrative Record by Plaintiff. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Review filing by Court regarding 283 11/30/2017 ADI receipt of Administrative Record. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Facts investigation regarding timeline for drafting of affidavits and 284 11/30/2017 ADI deposition of Matthew Oskowis. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 The description of services is adequate. Moreover, the content of the letter is subject to attorney client privilege and the entry has already Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 286 12/1/2017 ADI Draft letter to Trust 0.60 $ 52.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent.

Facts investigation regarding projected time for affidavits, witness consultation, deposition and Motion 287 12/1/2017 ADI for Summary Judgment. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Research regarding attorneys fees 289 12/5/2017 EAP standard 1.00 $ 195.00 N $ 195.00

Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 290 12/6/2017 ADI Notice of Intent to file 12© Motion. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Research "improper purpose" under 295 12/7/2017 EAP IDEA 2.00 $ 390.00 N $ 390.00 Research for award of attorneys 296 12/7/2017 EAP fees, IDEA 1.40 $ 273.00 N $ 273.00 Study cases discussing improper 297 12/7/2017 EAP purpose from around nation 1.40 $ 273.00 N $ 273.00 Research regarding "frivolous" case 298 12/7/2017 EAP under IDEA 1.20 $ 234.00 N $ 234.00 Review caselaw on pleading 301 12/8/2017 NDS standards and 28 USC 1415(i)(3) 1.50 $ 262.50 N $ 262.50 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Study cases finding improper 302 12/8/2017 EAP purpose 0.50 $ 97.50 N $ 97.50

summarize key factors for improper purpose, cases where rejected as not 303 12/8/2017 EAP improper or findings was improper 0.70 $ 136.50 N $ 136.50 Facts investigation regarding affidavits, prima facie elements, and 304 12/8/2017 ADI proving counterclaim. 2.20 $ 192.50 Y $ 192.50 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Develop case plan; identify issues Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 305 12/8/2017 RGT and response. 2.10 $ 204.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Strategy for next steps in Federal #4, Affidavits, Motion for Summary 306 12/8/2017 EAP Judgment 1.30 $ 126.75 Y $ 126.75 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Develop case plan and research Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 307 12/8/2017 PMH Memorandum 2.00 $ 200.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 311 12/11/2017 PMH Review Request for Discovery. 0.80 $ 80.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 80.00 Review 1/22/16 D.P. transcript of 313 12/12/2017 NDS Tiffany Wilson testimony. 2.20 $ 192.50 Y $ 192.50

Review 1/21/16 transcript testimony 314 12/12/2017 NDS of Rebecca Vess and Michael Ramus 1.50 $ 131.25 Y $ 131.25

Review Oskowis Initial Disclosure 319 12/14/2017 NDS pet873‐936; 1/30/2015 transcript 2.70 $ 236.25 Y $ 236.25 Review Oskowis initial disclosure: 320 12/15/2017 NDS pet873‐733 3.00 $ 262.50 Y $ 262.50

Review Oskowis initial disclosure, pet.733‐661; 4/12/2014 transcript of 321 12/15/2017 NDS Traci Parry. 3.00 $ 262.50 Y $ 262.50 Review Plaintiff's First Request for 322 12/15/2017 ADI Production. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 Review Local Rules and Rule 34 and 323 12/15/2017 ADI 26 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 0.60 $ 52.50 Y $ 52.50 Research caselaw on improper purpose; Bethleham Sch. Dist. V. 326 12/16/2017 NDS Zhou 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50

Lacking appropriate detail. The District has 327 12/18/2017 PMH Review notice letter and sign. 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) decreased this entry to .2 0.2 $ 40.00 Initial determination of elements; Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 328 12/18/2017 RGT proof response, use of affidavits. 1.90 $ 370.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Review pet. 658‐661, transcripts 329 12/18/2017 NDS from Nov. 2013 D. P. Proceedings. 2.50 $ 218.75 Y $ 218.75 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Review Request for Production of Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 330 12/18/2017 PMH Documents. 0.60 $ 60.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 60.00 Facts regarding objections to Request for Production submitted by 331 12/18/2017 ADI Plaintiff. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 Research regarding Zhu case, 336 12/19/2017 EAP subsequent history. 0.50 $ 97.50 N $ 97.50

Review casefile nad notes, organizing 337 12/19/2017 NDS information for affidavits. 1.50 $ 131.25 Y $ 131.25 Telephone conference with Sara Leon regarding Motion for Summary 338 12/19/2017 PMH Judgment. 1.00 $ 100.00 Y $ 100.00

Research caselaw: Rule 11, standard of review, sufficiency of allegations, 344 12/20/2017 NDS IDEA pleading standards. 1.50 $ 262.50 N $ 262.50 Review pleadings in Texas fees case, 345 12/20/2017 EAP research citations 0.60 $ 117.00 N $ 117.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Review documents/pleadings/motions forwarded by Texas attorney; review Memorandum regarding Zhou 346 12/20/2017 ADI decision. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00

347 12/20/2017 EAP Draft summary regarding Zhou case 0.40 $ 78.00 N $ 78.00 348 12/20/2017 NDS Draft MSJ: Background info. 1.60 $ 280.00 N $ 280.00

349 12/20/2017 NDS Draft MSJ; count 1 of counterclaim. 4.20 $ 735.00 N $ 735.00 353 12/22/2017 NDS Edit MSJ: Counterclaims. 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00 Draft MSJ on counterclaims: Intro 356 12/26/2017 NDS and Conclusion. 2.00 $ 350.00 N $ 350.00 357 12/26/2017 NDS Draft MSJ on counterclaims 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Edit and Revise MSJ on counterclaims: added harassment 358 12/27/2017 NDS claim. 3.00 $ 525.00 N $ 525.00 359 12/28/2017 NDS Revise MSJ: counterclaims 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00

Email partners draft of MSJ on Inter‐office counterclaims, discussing thoughts Inter‐office communications relating and strategies moving forward communications should not to the processing of the 360 12/28/2017 NDS regarding Rule 12(c) motion. 1.00 $ 175.00 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 175.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 361 1/1/2018 PMH Review extensive research. 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 362 1/2/2018 PMH Review file and e‐mails. 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Draft Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production (Preliminary Statement, General Objections, and Objections to Instructions and 363 1/2/2018 ADI Definitions). 2.00 $ 175.00 Y $ 175.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 369 1/3/2018 ADI Review draft analysis for Motion. 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 52.50

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating Conference with Alex regarding communications should not to the processing of the 370 1/3/2018 NDS supplemental disclosures. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y be billed. case are properly billed. $ 17.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 371 1/3/2018 RGT Review correspondence and reply. 0.30 $ 29.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 29.25

Draft Notice of sService of Response Lacking appropriate detail. The Description of 372 1/3/2018 ADI to Request for Production. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 26.25 The alleged duplicate was Draft Objections and Responses to a no charge and has been Plaintiff's First request for Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 373 1/3/2018 ADI Production. 1.80 $ 157.50 Y #379 spread sheet. Preview pleadings in prior consolidated hearing from 374 1/3/2018 ADI 2013/2014 for disclsoure. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 Facts investigation regarding 375 1/3/2018 ADI supplemental disclosure. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 376 1/3/2018 ADI Draft Supplemental Disclosure. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 26.25

Inter‐office Prepare for attorney meeting on all Inter‐office communications relating pending Oskowis matters with communications should not to the processing of the 382 1/4/2018 NDS Patrice, Gehl, Alex, Eve, Sheri. 0.50 $ 87.50 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 87.50

This entry is sufficiently specific to determine whether the time allotted is reasonable. Furthermore, the entry Develop litigation plan; draft has already been 383 1/4/2018 RGT deposition Questions. 1.20 $ 117.00 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 117.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Facts investigation regarding Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 384 1/4/2018 ADI litigation strategy. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 26.25 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Consider strategy regarding next Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 385 1/4/2018 EAP steps. 0.50 $ 48.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge

Research and review Fed. R. Civ. P. 389 1/5/2018 ADI 28 and 30 regarding depositions 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 Draft 12(c) motion for judgmenet on The alleged duplicate was the pleadings ‐ background, a no charge and has been statement of facts, research on 12(c) Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 391 1/5/2018 NDS standards. 1.75 $ 153.13 Y #392 spread sheet.

Facts investigationg regarding revisions to and finalizing of Reponse to Plaintiff's Request for Production; 394 1/7/2018 ADI finalizie for service on Plaintiff. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00

The description of the service is adequate. Lacking appropriate detail. Moreover, subject to 395 1/7/2018 ADI Draft letter to Trust. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) attorney client privilege

Facts investigation regarding remaining disclosures and audio 397 1/8/2018 ADI from OAH prehearing conferences. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25

Review draft Response and Request 398 1/8/2018 EAP for Production, comments 0.80 $ 78.00 Y $ 78.00 Research standard review for 12 (c) motions; Research how they relate The alleged duplicate was to 1415(i)(2) appeals; draft a no charge and has been "Standard of Review: Fed. R. Civ. P. Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 399 1/8/2018 NDS (12(c) " section. 2.60 $ 227.50 Y #400 spread sheet. Finalize Response to Plaintiff's First Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 402 1/9/2018 ADI Request for Production. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 35.00 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Revise/Edit Rule 12(c) Motion for Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 404 1/9/2018 NDS Judgment on the Pleadings. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y #409 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Draft 12(c) motion, Analysis section Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 405 1/9/2018 NDS and Count 1. 0.90 $ 78.75 Y #408 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was Draft 12(c) Motion for Judgment on a no charge and has been the Pleadings, update analysis Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 406 1/9/2018 NDS section and draft Counts 1, 2, and 3. 1.30 $ 113.75 Y #407 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Edit 12(c) motion for judgment on Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 411 1/10/2018 NDS the pleadings: analysis section. 0.35 $ 30.63 Y #416 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was Draft 12(c) Motion for Judgment on a no charge and has been the Pleadings; Count 3, Conclusion Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 412 1/10/2018 NDS sections. 1.00 $ 87.50 Y #415 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was Research whether 12(c) motion in a no charge and has been this context, if granted, is with Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 413 1/10/2018 NDS prejudice or without. 0.35 $ 30.63 Y #417 spread sheet. Edit Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment Lacking appropriate detail. The descripton of the 414 1/10/2018 NDS on the Pleadings. 0.70 $ 61.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 61.25 Edit 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; revise count 3 420 1/11/2018 NDS analysis. 0.80 $ 70.00 Y $ 70.00 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Reviewed Fed 4 Amended Answer to Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 421 1/12/2018 SA determine disclosure needs. 0.35 $ 22.75 Y #429 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Prepare Supplemental Disclosure Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 422 1/12/2018 SA Fed 4 0.70 $ 45.50 Y #426 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 423 1/12/2018 SA Research Initial Disclosure Docs 0.50 $ 32.50 Y #428 spread sheet. This entry describes services both related to Review Federal Rules of Civil drafting the notice of oral Procedure regarding Notice of deposition and thus are Deposition; draft Notice to Plaintiff not impermissible block 432 1/15/2018 ADI of Oral deposition. 0.70 $ 61.25 Y Block billing billing. $ 61.25 Draft Notice of Service on Plaintiff of 433 1/15/2018 ADI Notice of Deposition. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 Review Motion for Judgment on the 434 1/15/2018 ADI Pleadings. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Facts investigation regarding 435 1/16/2018 ADI discovery to be supplemented. 1.00 $ 87.50 Y $ 87.50 Reviewed Model Rules of Civil 436 1/16/2018 SA Procedure for Depositions. 0.20 $ 13.00 Y This entry describes $ 13.00 services that are both related to drafting of the Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the Edit 12(c) Motion for Judgment on pleadings and thus are the Pleadings; email draft to Team not impermissible block 437 1/16/2018 NDS for input. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y Block billing billing. $ 43.75

Finalize letter to Plaintiff regarding 438 1/16/2018 ADI notice of intent to file 12(c) Motion. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Prepare Discovery for Supplemental Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 442 1/18/2018 SA Disclosure 0.90 $ 58.50 Y #444 spread sheet. Review and revise Judgment on the Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 443 1/18/2018 PMH Pleadings. 0.80 $ 80.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 80.00 Review 17C and draft deposition 448 1/20/2018 RGT questions. 1.10 $ 107.25 Y $ 107.25 Edit 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings in Fed #4 after The alleged duplicate was receiving input form Attorney a no charge and has been Horstman, Attorney Tucker, and Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 451 1/21/2018 NDS Attorney Ivan. 0.75 $ 65.63 Y #458 spread sheet. Facts investigation regarding 12(c) 452 1/21/2018 ADI Motion and revisions. 1.60 $ 140.00 Y $ 140.00 Work product privilege. Nonetheless, the District Conference and lunch with Attorney Lacking appropriate detail. has decreased this entry 459 1/22/2018 ADI Tucker. 1.20 $ 105.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) to .5 0.5 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Edit 12(c) Motion for Judgment on Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 461 1/22/2018 NDS the Pleadings. 0.80 $ 70.00 Y #461 spread sheet.

All of the activities in this billing relate to to the Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 regarding preparation of the notice proof of service of subpoena and and subpoena for tendering fees; review 28 U.S.C. Plaintiff's deposition. 1821 regarding per diem mileage and Therefore it is not attendance fees; review uniformed impermissible block table of distances and mileage billing. Furthermore, this reimbursement rates from entry has already been 478 1/29/2018 ADI Administrator of General Services. 1.00 $ 87.50 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 87.50 Telephone call to Plaintiff and voicemail regarding availability to receive Notice of Deposition and 479 1/30/2018 ADI subpoena. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Draft Response to Plaintiff's Motion Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 488 1/31/2018 ADI to Strike. 2.30 $ 201.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 201.25 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Revise and finalize Notice of Taking Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 490 2/1/2018 ADI Deposition. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 26.25

All of the activities in this billing relate to a communication with Plaintiff, a phone call and an email. Therefore it is not impermissible block Voicemail to Plaintiff regarding billing. Furthermore, this personal service of subpoena; follow‐ entry has already been 491 2/1/2018 ADI up email. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y Block Billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 43.75 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge

All of the activities in this billing relate to a revision of the Rule 12(c) motion. Therefore it is not Review response to motion to strike impermissible block out 12(c) motion. Suggest edits for billing. Furthermore, this Attorney Horstman and Ivan and entry has already been 493 2/1/2018 NDS discuss same with Attorney Ivan. 2.00 $ 175.00 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 175.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Revise Response to Plaintiff's Motion Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 494 2/1/2018 ADI to Strike 0.60 $ 52.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 52.50

Inter‐office communications relating to the processing of the Conference with Attorney Alex Ivan case are properly billed. and Paralegal Sheri F‐S on Block billing. Inter‐office Furthermore, this entry supplemental disclosures in Fed. #4. communications should not has already been 496 2/2/2018 NDS Redact certain bills for disclosure. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y be billed. discounted by 50 percent. $ 43.75 Review e‐mail from Matt Oskowis (x2) regarding disclosure and service 497 2/2/2018 PMH of subpoena. 0.30 $ 30.00 Y $ 30.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, this entry Review and revise response to Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 498 2/2/2018 PMH Motion to Strike. 0.30 $ 30.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 30.00 Draft letter to District Finance and Business Manager regarding: 499 2/5/2018 SA Discovery Requests. 0.30 $ 19.50 Y $ 19.50 Telephone call with Paula Tallini, Process Server regarding: serving 500 2/5/2018 SA Mr. Oskowis at the IEP meeting. 0.20 $ 13.00 Y $ 13.00 Review, revise and finalize letter to Kathleen Hutchison regarding 501 2/5/2018 ADI employee information. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y $ 43.75

Review, revise and finalize letter to finance director regarding invoices, 502 2/5/2018 ADI etc. from Dr. Trina Spencer. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y $ 43.75

Phone call with Paula Tallini 503 2/5/2018 SA regarding: serving Matthew Oskowis 0.20 $ 13.00 Y $ 13.00

Attorney client privilege. Furthermore, this entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 504 2/5/2018 PMH Review and revise letter to Trust. 0.20 $ 20.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Review email response from H.R. Director regarding timeline for provision of employee 505 2/6/2018 ADI documentation. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Review Plaintiff's Response to 513 2/7/2018 ADI Defendant's 12(c) Motion. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50

Review response from H.R. Director 514 2/7/2018 ADI regarding employee information. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y $ 17.50 Review Oskowis mandatory initial 515 2/7/2018 PMH disclosure. 0.30 $ 30.00 Y $ 30.00 Review emails regarding Oskowis 516 2/7/2018 PMH avoiding service and respond. 0.20 $ 20.00 Y $ 20.00 Review initial discovery disclosure 520 2/8/2018 PMH (Oskowis) 0.60 $ 60.00 Y $ 60.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 523 2/9/2018 PMH Review strategy 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. All of the services described are related to the acceptance of service Block billing. Lacking and thus do not Draft, revise and finalize acceptance appropriate detail. LRCiv constitute impermissible 524 2/9/2018 ADI of service; send to Plaintiff. 0.50 $ 43.75 Y 54.2(e)(2) block billing. $ 43.75 The alleged duplicate was Draft Reply to Matt's Response to a no charge and has been our 12(c) Motion for judgment on removed from this excel 529 2/12/2018 NDS the Pleadings. 3.60 $ 630.00 N Duplicate #530 spread sheet. Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Draft Reply to Matt's Response to our 12(c) Motion for judgment on Lacking appropriate detail. 530 2/12/2018 NDS the Pleadings. 2.20 $ 385.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) $ 385.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Draft Acceptance of Service for Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 531 2/12/2018 SA Subpoena 0.20 $ 13.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 13.00 532 2/12/2018 PMH Review emails regarding service 0.30 $ 30.00 Y $ 30.00 Edit Reply on 12(c) motion addressing attorney Alex Ivan's 535 2/14/2018 NDS Comments 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00 Review and revise Reply to Plaintiff's Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 536 2/14/2018 ADI Response. 0.80 $ 140.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 140.00 Revise and finalize for filing 537 2/14/2018 ADI Defendant's Reply Brief. 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Finalize Reply on 12(c) motion addressing attorney Alex Ivan's 538 2/14/2018 NDS Comments 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 539 2/14/2018 PMH Review, reply and revise. 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 100.00 540 2/14/2018 PMH Review Joint Statement. 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 541 2/14/2018 ADI Draft Motion to Summary Judgment. 1.50 $ 262.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 262.50 Facts investigation regarding applicability of prevailing party test 543 2/15/2018 ADI to Defendants. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been removed from this excel 544 2/15/2018 ADI Draft Summary Judgment Motion. 1.50 $ 262.50 N Duplicate of #541 spread sheet. 547 2/16/2018 PMH Review prevailing party cases. 0.50 $ 100.00 N $ 100.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 550 2/17/2018 RGT Draft questions for deposition. 3.40 $ 331.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 331.50 All of the services described are related to the preparation for the deposition and thus do not constitute impermissible block billing. Furthermore, the Review complaint and counterclaim; entry has already been 552 2/18/2018 RGT draft questions for deposition. 3.90 $ 380.25 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 380.25 All of the services described are related to the preparation for the deposition and thus do not constitute impermissible block billing. Furthermore, the Internet search for Oskowis entry has already been 553 2/19/2018 RGT websites; draft final questions. 4.20 $ 409.50 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 409.50 All of the services described are related to the preparation for the deposition and thus do not constitute Prepare for deposition; conduct impermissible block deposition; follow up regarding billing. Furthermore, the deposition information entry has already been 556 2/20/2018 RGT Olmsted/Mesa/Tav. 4.80 $ 468.00 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 468.00 Research prevailing party 564 2/21/2018 ADI determination/eligibility. 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Review email from Sally Cadigan 565 2/21/2018 ADI regarding Oskowis call to public. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Telephone conference with Danielle Allocco, Director of Chrysalus Inconsistent billing. Refer The District has deleted 573 2/23/2018 ADI Academy regarding subpoena. 0.40 $ 70.00 N to #567, 571, 572, and 578 this entry. 0 $ ‐

Review Oskowis evaluation regarding 577 2/26/2018 PMH EIS submission response (2x) 0.40 $ 40.00 Y $ 40.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The desription of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry has already Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 581 2/27/2018 SA Draft Supplemental Disclosure. 2.00 $ 130.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. $ 130.00 The desription of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry has already Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 584 2/28/2018 SA Revise Supplemental disclosure. 0.40 $ 26.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. $ 26.00 Review Oskowis email regarding ESI 585 2/28/2018 PMH and response. 0.40 $ 40.00 Y $ 40.00

All of the services described are related to the retention of internet based research form and thus do not constitute impermissible block billing. Furthermore, the Review TERIS Agreement and email entry has already been 586 2/28/2018 PMH TERIS 0.20 $ 20.00 Y Block billing discounted by 50 percent. $ 20.00 Review email regarding Rule 16 and 587 2/28/2018 PMH Order. 0.40 $ 40.00 Y $ 40.00 Review and finalize disclosure 588 3/2/2018 PMH request for documents. 0.40 $ 40.00 Y $ 40.00

All of the services described are related to the retention of internet based research form and thus do not constitute impermissible block Review emails regarding TERIS Block billing. Lacking billing. Furthermore, the production and email Assistant appropriate detail. LRCiv entry has already been 591 3/5/2018 PMH Allamong (2X) 0.60 $ 60.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 60.00 The desription of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry has already Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 592 3/5/2018 PMH Review emails 0.30 $ 30.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. Telephone conference with TERIS 595 3/6/2018 ADI regarding production methods. 0.60 $ 52.50 Y $ 52.50 Facts investigation regarding review of documentation and release of 596 3/6/2018 ADI such to Plaintiff. 0.40 $ 35.00 Y $ 35.00 E‐mail to Plaintiff regarding 597 3/6/2018 ADI production of documentation. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y $ 26.25

All of the services described are electronic records production and thus and thus do not constitute impermissible block billing. Block billing. Lacking Furthermore, the entry Review TERIS emails and prepare for appropriate detail. LRCiv has already been 598 3/6/2018 PMH electronic product. 0.80 $ 80.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 599 3/6/2018 PMH Teleconference with TERIS 0.40 $ 40.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review electronic records/ privileged Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 602 3/7/2018 PMH documents 2.50 $ 250.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 250.00 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Telephone conference with TERIS Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 603 3/7/2018 PMH (3x) 0.40 $ 40.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review and finalize response to Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 604 3/7/2018 PMH initial disclosure 0.30 $ 30.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 30.00 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 605 3/7/2018 PMH Review and finalize letter to Oskowis 0.30 $ 30.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Telephone conference with Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 606 3/7/2018 PMH Sharon/TERIS (3x) 0.60 $ 60.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 607 3/7/2018 PMH Review electronic records ‐ 900 X 2.50 $ 250.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 250.00 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review documentation for Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 608 3/7/2018 ADI responsiveness and privilege. 3.50 $ 306.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 306.25 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review confirmation e‐mail and Excessive, redundant or has already been 609 3/7/2018 ADI Proof of Service. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y otherwise unnecessary. discounted by 50 percent. $ 17.50

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating Discussion with team regarding communications should not to the processing of the 610 3/7/2018 EAP review 0.50 $ 48.75 Y be billed. case are properly billed. $ 48.75 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 611 3/7/2018 EAP Review emails for disclosure. 3.20 $ 312.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 312.00 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review electronic records privilege Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 618 3/8/2018 PMH and redaction. 0.50 $ 50.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 50.00 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been removed from this excel Duplicate of #623. Lacking spread sheet. The Telephone conference with Sharon appropriate detail. LRCiv description of services is 619 3/8/2018 PMH Brown 0.20 $ 20.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) adequate. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review emails from Sharon Brown Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 620 3/8/2018 PMH and respond 0.30 $ 30.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Duplicate of #623. Lacking Telephone conference with Sharon appropriate detail. LRCiv The District has deleted 621 3/8/2018 PMH Brown 0.30 $ 30.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐ The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Review and finalize relectronic Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 622 3/8/2018 PMH records 1.50 $ 150.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 150.00 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Telephone conference with Sharon Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 623 3/8/2018 PMH Brown (2x) 0.30 $ 30.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 624 3/8/2018 PMH Emails from Sharon Brown (2x) 0.40 $ 40.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Further review of emails for Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 625 3/8/2018 EAP disclosure 2.10 $ 204.75 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 204.75 The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Telephone calls (2) to Teris and Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 626 3/8/2018 EAP Sharon Brown 0.30 $ 29.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Emails (2) to TERIS and Sharon Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 627 3/8/2018 EAP Brown 0.20 $ 19.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The description of services is adequate. Futhermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 628 3/8/2018 EAP Review additional email, Reply 0.20 $ 19.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Review emails regarding: Fed 4 from 633 3/12/2018 SA last week (54 total) 1.00 $ 130.00 N $ 130.00 Review emails regarding: Fed 4 from The District has deleted 634 3/12/2018 SA last week (54 total) 1.00 $ 130.00 N Duplicate #633 this entry. 0 $ ‐ Block billing. Lacking appropriate detail. LRCiv The description of 635 3/12/2018 EAP Review current status, disclosure 0.40 $ 78.00 N 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 78.00 All of the services described are related to the finalization of Defendant's initial disclosures thus do not constitute impermissible block billing. Review, revise, and finalize Block billing. Lacking Furthermore, the entry Defendant's final supplemental appropriate detail. LRCiv has already been 672 3/16/2018 ADI disclosures. 0.30 $ 26.25 Y 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 26.25 The description of services is adequately detailed. Furthermore, the entry has already Telephone conference with Attorney Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 673 3/16/2018 ADI Tucker and Sheri Smith‐Fetzer 0.30 $ 26.25 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. Block billing. Lacking Review discovery requests and appropriate detail. LRCiv 686 3/19/2018 PMH respond (2x) 0.40 $ 40.00 Y 54.2(e)(2) This is not block billing. $ 40.00 The description of services is adequately detailed. Furthermore, Review, revise, and finalize Notice of the entry has already Service of Defendant's Supplemental Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 693 3/20/2018 ADI Disclosures. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. $ 17.50 The description of services is adequately detailed. Furthermore, the entry has already Review documents regarding Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 703 3/21/2018 PMH discovery 1.00 $ 100.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. The description of services is adequatley detailed. Furthermore, the entry has already Lacking appropriate detail. been discounted by 50 704 3/21/2018 PMH Strategy and fact finding 1.00 $ 100.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) percent. E‐mail Oskowis regarding Motion in 715 3/22/2018 PMH Limine 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00 E‐mail and respond regarding Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 716 3/22/2018 PMH settlement 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 717 3/22/2018 PMH Review Oskowis email (3x) 0.60 $ 60.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding availability to hold good faith 729 3/23/2018 ADI settlement discussions. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Email Oskowis regarding settlement 730 3/23/2018 PMH meeting 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 731 3/23/2018 PMH Review Oskowis email and respond 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. Respond to Plaintiff regarding 732 3/23/2018 ADI proposed Motion to Limine. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Revise and finalize Notice of Service Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 733 3/23/2018 ADI of Supplemental Disclosures. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 17.50 The description of Revise and finalize Notice of Service services is adequate. of Documentation Responsive to Furthermore, the entry Plaintiff's First Request for Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 734 3/23/2018 ADI Production. 0.20 $ 17.50 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. $ 17.50 The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Review affidavits and joint motion Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 735 3/23/2018 PMH for summary judgment 1.25 $ 125.00 Y #737 spreadsheet. Review Oskowis email regarding 750 3/27/2018 PMH settlement and respond 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00 Block billing. Lacking Review file and preparement of appropriate detail. LRCiv The description of 751 3/27/2018 PMH summary judgment. 1.00 $ 200.00 N 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 200.00 The description of services is adequate. Furthermore, the entry Lacking appropriate detail. has already been 752 3/27/2018 PMH Review email and respond 0.20 $ 20.00 Y LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) discounted by 50 percent. The alleged duplicate was no charged and has been Draft Motion for Summary Judgment Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 767 3/28/2018 ADI on Counterclaim. 1.75 $ 306.25 N #772 spreadsheet. Draft Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 768 3/28/2018 ADI Judgment. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 35.00 Review research for sumary 769 3/28/2018 ADI judgment motion. 2.50 $ 437.50 N $ 437.50 Review good faith settlement 776 3/29/2018 PMH discussion and Rule 16 order 0.50 $ 100.00 N $ 100.00

Review email regarding prevailing 777 3/29/2018 PMH party status and research 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 Consider Approach regarding Motion 780 3/30/2018 EAP for Summary Judgment 0.40 $ 78.00 N $ 78.00

Review email regarding settlement 787 4/2/2018 PMH and conference and review Rule 16 0.50 $ 100.00 N $ 100.00 Review email regarding counterclaim 788 4/2/2018 PMH research. 0.30 $ 30.00 Y $ 30.00 Conference with Matt Oskowis 795 4/3/2018 PMH regarding good faith settlement 1.00 $ 200.00 N $ 200.00 Review and finalize memos and nots Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 796 4/3/2018 PMH to files 1.00 $ 200.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 200.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 797 4/3/2018 PMH Prepare and review Order 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 80.00 The description of services is adequate. Moreover, the contents Lacking appropriate detail. was subject to attorney 798 4/3/2018 PMH Email Trish Alley 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) client privilege.

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating Conference with Sheri regarding communications should not to the processing of the 799 4/3/2018 PMH drafting Notice for Court 0.30 $ 60.00 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 60.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Review and redraft minutes of 804 4/4/2018 PMH settlement. 0.80 $ 160.00 N $ 160.00 The description of services is adequate. Moreover, the contents Review email and respond to Lacking appropriate detail. was subject to attorney 805 4/4/2018 PMH District. 0.80 $ 160.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) client privilege. Review various‐email correspondence from Plaintiff questioning good faith settlement discussions; follow up regarding 806 4/4/2018 ADI same. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 807 4/4/2018 PMH Draft notice to court of settlement 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 80.00 Review Oskowis email and respond Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 809 4/5/2018 PMH (3x) 1.00 $ 200.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 810 4/5/2018 PMH Review finalized minutes 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 60.00

Review Oskowis email and respond 818 4/6/2018 PMH Good Faith Settlement (2x) 0.60 $ 120.00 N $ 120.00 Review Oskowis response and Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 819 4/6/2018 PMH respond 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 80.00 Review Federal Rule of Evidence 408 regarding confidentiality of 823 4/8/2018 ADI settlement negotiations. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 825 4/9/2018 PMH Draft good faith settlement report 0.80 $ 160.00 N $ 160.00 Review email Oskowis and respond Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 826 4/9/2018 PMH (2x) 0.60 $ 120.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 827 4/9/2018 PMH Review Court Order regarding status 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 60.00 828 4/9/2018 PMH Review and finalize Joint Report 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00 Review appellate brief in D.C. Circuit case regarding prevailing status 829 4/9/2018 ADI determination. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 The alleged duplicate was no charged and has been Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 830 4/9/2018 EAP Review emails for use as exhibits. 0.25 $ 24.38 Y #833 spreadsheet. Research definition of party for political subdivision; draft 835 4/10/2018 ADI memorandum regarding same. 1.50 $ 262.50 N $ 262.50 Research issue of prevailing party for 836 4/10/2018 EAP fees 1.00 $ 195.00 N $ 195.00 Review Court Order regarding rule 837 4/10/2018 PMH 12(c) 0.80 $ 160.00 N $ 160.00 Review Court's various orders relating to motions and telephonic 838 4/10/2018 ADI status conference. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 839 4/10/2018 PMH Review definition of Party 0.30 $ 60.00 N $ 60.00

Review Court Order regarding Notice Excessive, redundant or The District has 840 4/10/2018 PMH of Telephonic Conference 0.30 $ 60.00 N otherwise unnecessary. decreased this entry by .1 0.1 $ 20.00 Draft Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's underlying causes of Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 849 4/11/2018 ADI action. 1.50 $ 262.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 262.50 Facts regarding change of strategy in addressing underlying appealed due process decision and summary 850 4/11/2018 ADI judgment motion. 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Review matter regarding motion for Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 851 4/11/2018 PMH summary judgment 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 100.00 E‐mail Oskowis regarding Motion in 852 4/11/2018 PMH Limine 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 Review and finalize response and Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 853 4/11/2018 PMH reply 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 60.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 854 4/11/2018 PMH Review 2nd response and reply 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 40.00 Telephone conference with Matt Lacking appropriate detail. 863 4/12/2018 PMH Oskowis 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) Telephone conference with Matt 864 4/12/2018 PMH Oskowis 0.50 $ 100.00 N Duplicate #863 This should be deleted. 0 $ ‐ Facts investigation regarding Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 865 4/12/2018 ADI administrative record. 0.40 $ 70.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 70.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description to 866 4/12/2018 PMH Memorandum to file 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Review email Matt Oskowis and 867 4/12/2018 PMH respond 0.30 $ 60.00 N Duplicate #868 This should be deleted. 0 $ ‐ Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 868 4/12/2018 PMH Review email Oskowis and respond 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. 871 4/13/2018 PMH Attend conference call with Judge 1.00 $ 200.00 N $ 200.00 Review Rule 16 Order and prepare 872 4/13/2018 PMH for call with Judge 0.50 $ 100.00 N $ 100.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge

Review Rule 16 pretrial conference attendance requirements; draft 873 4/13/2018 ADI Memorandum regarding same. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50

Facts regarding possible extension of dispositive motion deadline and 874 4/13/2018 ADI good faith settlement discussions. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 875 4/13/2018 PMH Email Matt Oskowis 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. All services provided under this entry relate to the review and production of emails in Block billing. Lacking discovery and thus is not Discovery transmittal of record and appropriate detail. LRCiv impermissible block 876 4/13/2018 PMH review emails 0.30 $ 60.00 N 54.2(e)(2) billing.

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating communications should not to the processing of the 877 4/13/2018 PMH Conference with Alex Ivan 0.06 $ 12.00 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 12.00

This is not a duplicate Draft Motion for Summary Judgment entry and instead is the on Plaintiff's underlying causes of continuation of work 882 4/15/2018 ADI Action. 2.50 $ 437.50 N Duplicate of #849 begun on April 11, 2018. $ 437.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 883 4/16/2018 PMH Letter to David Lykins 1.00 $ 200.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 884 4/16/2018 PMH Review Oskowis email respond 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate.

Draft joint report and request to Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 888 4/17/2018 PMH extend deadline, review and revise 0.80 $ 160.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 160.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 889 4/17/2018 PMH Review joint report and redraft 0.80 $ 160.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 160.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 890 4/17/2018 PMH letter to D. Lykins and finalize 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate.

The description of Block billing. Lacking services is adequate. Review joint report and good faith appropriate detail. LRCiv Because this is the same 891 4/17/2018 VF settlement talks. 0.10 $ 17.50 N 54.2(e)(2) thing it is not block billing. $ 17.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 898 4/19/2018 PMH Review email Oskowis (2x) 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. The alleged duplicate was no charged and has been Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 899 4/19/2018 PMH Redraft joint report and finalize 0.50 $ 100.00 N #892 spreadsheet. Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 900 4/19/2018 PMH Review final report 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 80.00 The alleged duplicate was no charged and has been Review and revise Joint Status Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 901 4/19/2018 ADI Report regarding settlement talks. 0.30 $ 52.50 N #904 spreadsheet. Email Oskowis regarding settlement 902 4/19/2018 PMH meeting 0.20 $ 40.00 N $ 40.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The District has deleted 905 4/20/2018 PMH regarding settlement talks. 0.50 $ 100.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐ The description of services is specific Block billing. Lacking enough to determine Review court order and Oskowis appropriate detail. LRCiv whether the time is 906 4/20/2018 PMH emails 0.40 $ 80.00 N 54.2(e)(2) reasonable. $ 80.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The District has deleted 907 4/20/2018 VF Review and finalize 0.25 $ 43.75 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) this entry. 0 $ ‐ Review Order extending deadline The District has regarding settlement and dispositive Excessive, redundant or discounted this entry to 908 4/20/2018 ADI motions. 0.20 $ 35.00 N otherwise unnecessary. .1. 0.1 $ 17.50 The alleged duplicate was Meeting with Attorney Horstman no charged and has been and Sheri Smith‐Fetzer to discuss removed from this excel 909 4/20/2018 VF status and plan future steps. 0.10 $ 17.50 N Duplicate #915 spreadsheet. Review record and determine Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 917 4/24/2018 PMH maintenance of files 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 40.00 E‐mail to Attorney Horstman, Attorney Ivan and Sheri Smith‐Fetzer regarding Matthew Oskowis's latest 918 4/24/2018 VF e‐mail. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Facts investigation regarding 919 4/26/2018 ADI discovery, settlement and motions. 1.20 $ 210.00 N $ 210.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 920 4/26/2018 PMH Review emails an transcript 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Revise Motion for Summary Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 922 4/29/2018 ADI Judgment. 1.20 $ 210.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 210.00

Review correspondence and facts investigation regarding discovery, settlement, and possible subpoena 923 4/30/2018 ADI of e‐mail records. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 924 4/30/2018 PMH E‐mail regarding transcript 0.20 $ 40.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate.

Reviewed ALJ record regarding paraprofessional complaint, revised section regarding the same in motion 925 5/1/2018 VF for summary judgment. 1.30 $ 227.50 N $ 227.50 Letter to Matthew Oskowis 926 5/1/2018 VF regarding settlement. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Review section in Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim related to frivolous claims under IDEA; incorporate Motion for Summary Judgment on underlying 927 5/1/2018 ADI civil action. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 928 5/1/2018 VF Review and update Oskowis Matters. 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Draft sections of Motion for Summary Judgment related to 929 5/2/2018 ADI Plaintiff's Counts 1 and 2. 2.50 $ 437.50 N $ 437.50

Inter‐office Review emails from Attorney Ivan inter‐office communications relating and make revisions to settlement communications should not to the processing of the 930 5/2/2018 VF letter to Matthew Oskowis. 0.10 $ 17.50 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 17.50 These services both relate to the letter to Matthew Oskowis and therefore Finalize letter to Matthew Oskowis. are not impermissible 931 5/2/2018 VF Email to DL to send out. 0.10 $ 17.50 N Block billing block bililng. $ 17.50 Draft section of Motion for Summary Judgment related to Plaintiff's Count 3; revise additional portions of 933 5/6/2018 ADI motion. 2.50 $ 437.50 N $ 437.50 These services both relate to the revision of the motion for summary Review initial motion for summary judgment and therefore judgment and email Attorney Ivan are not impermissible 934 5/7/2018 VF regarding suggested revisions. 0.70 $ 122.50 N Block billing block bililng. $ 122.50

Review email sent to Trish Alley 935 5/7/2018 VF regarding EO's medical condition. 0.10 $ 17.50 N $ 17.50

Facts regarding delay in ALI determinations and allegations in DP 15 regarding paraprofessional 936 5/10/2018 ADI qualification and supervision. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 937 5/10/2018 VF Read decision on attorney's fees. 0.10 $ 17.50 N $ 17.50

Facts regarding administrative 938 5/11/2018 ADI record and IEPs contained therein. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 939 5/11/2018 VF Read MO's due process complaint. 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 52.50

Facts regarding proceeding to hearing, data sheets in the record, 940 5/14/2018 ADI and pre‐hearing audio recordings. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00

Facts regarding Notice of Readiness; review Court Rule 16 Scheduling Order and Order Extending 941 5/14/2018 ADI Dispositive Motion Deadline. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating Telephone conference with Veronika communications should not to the processing of the 942 5/14/2018 PMH regarding Association of counsel 0.40 $ 80.00 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 80.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating Review emails and respond communications should not to the processing of the 943 5/14/2018 PMH regarding deadline 0.30 $ 60.00 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 60.00

Draft memorandum Regarding party obligations to file Notice of 944 5/14/2018 ADI Readiness and deadline to file same. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review Paralegal Smith‐Fetzer's inter‐office email regarding notice of readiness communications should not 945 5/14/2018 VF and order, respond. 0.10 $ 17.50 N be billed. $ 17.50 Finalize initial draft of motion for Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 948 5/16/2018 VF summary judgment. 2.70 $ 472.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 472.50 Review and revise draft Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's 949 5/17/2018 ADI underlying civil action. 1.50 $ 262.50 N $ 262.50 Facts regarding STO's, including their purpose and the District's obligation 950 5/17/2018 ADI to revise them. 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Block billing. Lacking The description is specific appropriate detail. LRCiv enough to determine Finalize initial draft of motion for 54.2(e)(2). Inter‐office whether a reasonable summary judgment and emailed to communications should not amount of time was 951 5/17/2018 VF Attorney Ivan for review. 0.70 $ 122.50 N be billed. billed. $ 122.50 Research on short‐term objectives to include in motion for summary 952 5/17/2018 VF judgment. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 The description is specific Review and incorporate Attorney enough to determine Ivan's edits into motion for summary whether a reasonable judgment; proofread to make more amount of time was 953 5/18/2018 VF concise. 1.10 $ 192.50 N Block billing billed. $ 192.50 Review and revise draft Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 954 5/18/2018 ADI underlying civil action. 0.50 $ 87.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 87.50 Facts regarding guidance found in former Appendix to IDEAS regulations relative to STO's and 955 5/19/2018 ADI their purpose. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 Facts regarding progress reports; review of the administrative record and Plaintiff's acknowledged receipt 956 5/19/2018 ADI thereof. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50

Research and review Tenth Circuit 957 5/19/2018 ADI Case interpreting purpose of STO's. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Follow‐up regarding Plaintiff's response to District's offer of settlement and report with Court on 958 5/23/2018 ADI status of negotiations. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Facts regarding separate statement of facts incorporated into body of 959 5/24/2018 ADI motion for summary judgment. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50

Proofread and made revisions to motion for summary judgment to 960 5/25/2018 VF make more concise, more coherent. 1.50 $ 262.50 N $ 262.50 Revise motion for summary Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 961 5/25/2018 ADI judgment. 1.20 $ 210.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 210.00 Draft updated report to court Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 962 5/25/2018 PMH regarding settlement. 1.00 $ 200.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 200.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 963 5/25/2018 PMH Draft updated settlement report 0.60 $ 120.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 120.00 Facts regarding IDEA progress report requirements and notation with an 964 5/25/2018 ADI IEP. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 The services related to incorporating administrative record into the motion for summary Review administrative record; revise judgment and therefore is and finalize motion for summary not impermissible block 965 5/27/2018 ADI judgment. 1.50 $ 262.50 N Block billling billing. $ 262.50 Proofread and made additional revisions to motion for summary 966 5/29/2018 VF judgment. 1.20 $ 210.00 N $ 210.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Facts regarding statement of facts citations, progress reports, citations to repealed law, and strategy for timing of filing motion for summary 967 5/29/2018 ADI judgment. 0.80 $ 140.00 N $ 140.00 Review and incorporate Attorney Ivan's edits into motion for summary 968 5/29/2018 VF judgment. 0.60 $ 105.00 N Block billing This is not block billing. $ 105.00 Review and revise Defendant's notice/update on status of Lacking appropriate detail. 969 5/29/2018 ADI settlement discussions. 0.50 $ 87.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) This is not block billing. $ 87.50 Calculate deadlines for filing motion Excessive, redundant or The District has deleted 970 5/29/2018 VF for summary judgment. 0.40 $ 70.00 N otherwise unnecessary. this entry. 0 $ ‐

Drafted statement of facts in support Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 971 5/30/2018 VF of motion for summary judgment. 1.20 $ 210.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 210.00 Proofread and made revisions to Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 972 5/30/2018 VF motion for summary judgment. 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 52.50 Review edits to Defendant's notice/update on status of settlement discussions and finalize Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 973 5/30/2018 ADI for filing. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 35.00 Reviewed and revised and made edits to update on settlement Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 974 5/30/2018 VF discussions. 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 35.00 Finalized initial draft of statement of Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 975 5/31/2018 VF facts. 0.60 $ 105.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 105.00

Block billing. Lacking The description of the Review and incorporate DL's edits appropriate detail. LRCiv services is adequate. This 976 5/31/2018 VF into motion for summary judgment. 0.30 $ 52.50 N 54.2(e)(2) is not block billing. $ 52.50 Facts investigation regarding settlement discussions related to Federal 4 and 5 and finalizing separate statement of facts for 977 6/7/2018 ADI summary judgment motion. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00

Inter‐office inter‐office communications relating Review email from Attorney Ivan communications should not to the processing of the 978 6/7/2018 VF regarding MSJ and respond. 0.10 $ 17.50 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 17.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of the 979 6/8/2018 ADI Revise draft Statement of Facts. 2.50 $ 437.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 437.50

Review administrative record, complaint; cross‐reference citations 980 6/8/2018 ADI in draft Statement of Facts 2.00 $ 350.00 N $ 350.00 Review final motion for summary 981 6/8/2018 PMH judgment 0.60 $ 120.00 N $ 120.00

Review Bluebook and administrative 982 6/13/2018 ADI record; revise state of facts. 3.00 $ 525.00 N $ 525.00

Inter‐office Inter‐office communications relating Conference with Veronika regarding communications should not to the processing of the 983 6/13/2018 PMH update and adding counsel 0.30 $ 60.00 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 60.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 984 6/19/2018 PMH Review Notice of Association 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 60.00 Facts investigation regarding finalizing of motion for summary 985 6/20/2018 ADI judgment and statement of facts. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Revise Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's affirmative Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 986 6/21/2018 ADI action. 1.20 $ 210.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 210.00 All of the activities in this entry relate to the finalization of the Finalized statement of facts, double Block billing. Lacking statement of facts and is checking exhibits, and email to appropriate detail. LRCiv thus not impermissible 987 6/21/2018 VF Attorney Ivan. 1.20 $ 210.00 N 54.2(e)(2) block billing. $ 210.00 Revise Statement of Facts accompanying Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's affirmative Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 988 6/21/2018 ADI action. 0.80 $ 140.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 140.00

Review and incorporate Attorney 989 6/21/2018 VF Ivan's revisions into state of facts. 0.60 $ 105.00 N Block billing This is not block billing. $ 105.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge All of the activities in this entry relate to drafting the motion for summary judgment and is thus not Proofread motion for summary impermissible block 990 6/21/2018 VF judgment and sed to Attorney Ivan. 0.30 $ 52.50 N Block billing billing. $ 52.50 All of the activities in this entry relate to a Review settlement offer and settlement offer and are forwarded to Attorney Horstman thus not impermissible 991 6/21/2018 VF and Attorney Ivan. 0.20 $ 35.00 N Block billing block billing. $ 35.00 Facts investigation regarding level of administrative record citation detail included in Statement of Facts accompanying summary judgment 992 6/21/2018 ADI motion. 0.30 No Charge N No Charge Finalize revisions to Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's affirmative claims and Statement of Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 993 6/22/2018 VF Facts. 2.70 $ 472.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 472.50 Proofread Statement of Facts in support of Motion for Summary All of the activities in this Judgment and cross referenced with entry relate to finalizing exhibits. Redacted E.O.'s name and the motion for summary DOB on exhibits. Prepared and filed judgment and thus is not Motion for Summary Judgment, impermissible block 994 6/22/2018 DL Statement of Facts and exhibits. 4.00 $ 420.00 N Block billing billing. $ 420.00 Finalize for filing Statement of Facts accompanying Motion for Summary Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 995 6/22/2018 ADI Judgment. 1.50 $ 262.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 262.50 Finalize for filing the Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 996 6/22/2018 ADI Affirmative Action. 1.30 $ 227.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 227.50 Cite check Motion for Summary Judgment and research authority related to ALJ dismissals of due process complaints without a 997 6/22/2018 ADI hearing. 0.80 $ 140.00 N $ 140.00 Review email regarding authority to Dismiss without hearing and respond Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 998 6/22/2018 PMH (2x) 0.40 $ 80.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Review exhibits for statement of facts in support of Motion for 999 6/22/2018 VF Summary Judgment. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 Facts investigation regarding supplementary aids and services in relation to special education and 1000 6/22/2018 ADI related service minutes. 0.60 No Charge N No Charge Review statement of facts and Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1001 6/24/2018 PMH exhibits 1.00 $ 200.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 200.00 Facts investigation regarding likelihood of settlement, Governing Board approval, and discussions surrounding possible offer of 1007 6/27/2018 ADI settlement to Plaintiff. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review research regarding Due 1009 6/29/2018 PMH Process hearing. 0.40 $ 80.00 N $ 80.00 The description of services is adequate. Moreover, protected by Telephonic conference regarding Lacking appropriate detail. the work product 1016 7/6/2018 VF potential settlement 0.40 $ 70.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) doctrine. Facts regarding settlement proposal and timing in relation to appeal 1017 7/6/2018 ADI rights 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, controverted statement of facts, and 1018 7/24/2018 ADI exhibits 1.40 $ 245.00 N $ 245.00

Facts regarding Plaintiff's Response 1019 7/25/2018 ADI to Motion for Summary Judgment 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1020 7/27/2018 VF Begin drafting reply Memorandum, 0.40 $ 70.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 70.00 Review Response to Motion for 1021 7/29/2018 VF Summary Judgment 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Begin researching reply 1022 7/31/2018 VF Memorandum, 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Research A:J dismissals and facts 1023 8/1/2018 ADI investigation regarding same. 1.20 $ 210.00 N $ 210.00 Draft Motion for Extension to File Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment along with 1024 8/1/2018 DL proposed order 0.30 $ 31.50 N $ 31.50 E‐mail to MO to see if he objects to a 1025 8/1/2018 VF ten day extension on reply 0.10 $ 17.50 N $ 17.50 Proofread and make revisions to 1026 8/1/2018 VF request for extension. 0.10 $ 17.50 N $ 17.50 Begin drafting reply memorandum in support of motion for summary Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1027 8/2/2018 VF judgment 0.90 $ 157.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 157.50 Review motion requesting extension to deadline for filing Reply, Plaintiff's objection, and Court's Order granting 1028 8/2/2018 ADI extension. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 E‐mail to EO regarding extension revisions to request for extension, 1029 8/2/2018 VF email to DL 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review Tenth Circuit Opinion regarding ALJ dismissal for failure to state a claim and draft 1031 8/3/2018 ADI Memorandum regarding same. 0.90 $ 157.50 N $ 157.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1032 8/3/2018 VF Research on reply memorandum 0.50 $ 87.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Facts regarding parent legal claims and failure to request IEP meeting 1033 8/3/2018 ADI after progress reporting. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50

This is not block billing. Nor is it duplicative as counsel simply continued to research and draft the reply memorandum. The alleged duplicates were Research and drafted reply in not charged and have support of motion for summary Block billing. Duplicate of been removed from this 1034 8/6/2018 VF judgment. 4.30 $ 752.50 N #1020, #1027, and #1022 excel spreadheet. $ 752.50 Facts regarding IDEA due process complaint sufficiency and annual 1035 8/7/2018 ADI goal data sheets. 0.60 $ 105.00 N $ 105.00 Draft reply in support of motion for Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1036 8/8/2018 VF summary judgment 1.20 $ 210.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 210.00 Block billing. Lacking This is not block billing. Continued researching and drafting appropriate detail. LRCiv The description of 1037 8/9/2018 VF reply in support of MSJ 1.60 $ 280.00 N 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 280.00 Review notice for summary judgment response from Matt 1038 8/9/2018 PMH Oskowis 1.00 $ 200.00 N $ 200.00

This is not block billing. Nor is it duplicative as counsel simply continued to research and draft the reply memorandum. The Block billing. Lacking alleged duplicates were appropriate detail. LRCiv no charged and have Researched and drafted reply in 54.2(e)(2). Duplicate of been removed from this 1039 8/10/2018 VF support of MSJ 3.20 $ 560.00 N #1020, #1027, #1034, 1037 excel spreadheet. $ 560.00 Review emails from Veronika and Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1040 8/10/2018 PMH respond (2x) 0.60 $ 120.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate.

Facts regarding judicata, complaint sufficiency, and parent 1041 8/10/2018 ADI communications from the District. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00 Proofread and made revisions to Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1042 8/12/2018 VF reply to make more concise. 0.80 $ 140.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 140.00 The alleged duplicate was Proofread and made revisions to a no charge and has been reply memorandum, email to AI for Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 1043 8/13/2018 VF review. 0.95 $ 166.25 N #1045 spread sheet. The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Review and revise initial draft of Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 1044 8/13/2018 ADI Reply Brief. 0.75 $ 131.25 N #1046 spread sheet. Proofread and made revisions to reply memorandum based on AI's Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1047 8/14/2018 VF comments 2.60 $ 455.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 455.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge The alleged duplicate was a no charge and has been Review and revise second draft Reply Duplicate of no charge removed from this excel 1048 8/14/2018 ADI Brief with detailed citation checks. 0.80 $ 140.00 N #1048 spread sheet. Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1049 8/14/2018 VF Review and incorporate AI's edits 0.60 $ 105.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 105.00 Proofread and made additional revisions to reply in support of 1051 8/15/2018 VF motion for summary judgment 1.80 $ 315.00 N $ 315.00 Read and edited VF's reply regarding 1052 8/15/2018 VF SJM. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Telephone conference with PH to discuss reply, made edits and Inter‐office revisions based on discussion, review Inter‐office communications relating and incorporate AI's revisions to communications should not to the processing of the 1053 8/16/2018 VF reply. 1.70 $ 297.50 N be billed. case are properly billed. $ 297.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1054 8/16/2018 PMH Review and revise 1.40 $ 280.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Facts regarding entitlement to due process hearings and service minute 1055 8/16/2018 ADI calculations. 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 1058 8/17/2018 PMH Review final reply 0.50 $ 100.00 N $ 100.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1059 8/17/2018 ADI Finalize Reply Brief. 0.50 $ 87.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1060 8/17/2018 VF Final revisions to reply 0.50 $ 87.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1061 9/29/2018 PMH Review email and update Trish Alley 0.30 $ 60.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. The District has Review minute order transferring Excessive, redundant or discounted this entry to 1062 10/31/2018 ADI case to Judge Lanza 0.20 $ 35.00 N otherwise unnecessary. .1. 0.1 $ 17.50 Read order granting motion for 1065 2/15/2019 VF summary judgment 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Review and analyze Order granting summary judgment and 1066 2/19/2019 ADI accompanying judgment 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00 Facts regarding entry of judgment and erroneous termination in its entirety, including District's 1067 2/19/2019 ADI Counterclaim. 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50

Facts investigation regarding styling of claims for attorneys' fees as 1069 2/20/2019 ADI Counterclaim against Plaintiff 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50

Review and revise motion to amend judgment in accordance with order 1070 2/20/2019 ADI to preserve District's Counterclaim 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1071 2/20/2019 VF Draft motion to amend judgment 0.40 $ 70.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 70.00 Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1072 2/20/2019 VF Research on counterclaim 0.20 $ 35.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Review and incorporate AI's edits 1073 2/21/2019 VF into motion to amend 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 All of the activities in this Proofread Motion to Amended entry relate to the Judgment. Drafted Proposed Order finalization of the motion and email to Attorney Fabian. Filed to amend judgment and is Motion to proposed order with thus not impermissible 1074 2/21/2019 DL USDC. Email to judge chambers 0.20 $ 21.00 N Block billing block billing. $ 21.00

Review and analyze Court's order 1075 2/22/2019 ADI granting motion to amend judgment. 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00

Research on how to proceed with 1077 2/26/2019 VF respect to the attorney's fees claim. 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50

Began drafting motion for attorney's Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1078 2/26/2019 VF fees and memorandum in support. 0.60 $ 105.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 105.00

Review and analyze the applicability of judgment in Federal 4 to 1079 2/26/2019 ADI adjudication of issues in Federal 6 0.50 $ 87.50 N $ 87.50

Continued research and drafting memorandum in support of motion Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1080 2/27/2019 VF for attorney's fees and costs. 1.90 $ 332.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 332.50 Review Oskowis deposition for purposes of filing motion for 1081 2/27/2019 VF attorney's fees. 1.00 $ 175.00 N $ 175.00 Time Revised Revised Ref # Date Keeper Description Hours Amount Halved Billing Issue Identified The District's Response Hours Charge Draft memorandum regarding standards for fee awards against pro se parents and standard for showing 1082 2/27/2019 ADI improper purposes 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Research and facts regarding applicability of Rule 56 to IDEA fee‐ 1083 2/27/2019 ADI seeking actions. 0.40 $ 70.00 N $ 70.00

Worked on memorandum in support Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1085 2/28/2019 VF of motion for attorney's fees. 1.60 $ 280.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 280.00 Review Order in Federal 1 and revised proposed language for fee 1086 2/28/2019 ADI application 0.70 $ 122.50 N $ 122.50 Communications with Plaintiff regarding conferral to discuss settlement in lieu of pursuit of fee 1087 2/28/2019 ADI award 0.20 $ 35.00 N $ 35.00 Continued draft memorandum in Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1088 3/1/2019 VF support of attorney's fees 1.20 $ 210.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 210.00 Review email from Matthew and Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1089 3/1/2019 VF respond 0.30 $ 52.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. Drafted motion for leave to file motion regarding liability for 1090 3/1/2019 VF attorney's fees only 0.30 $ 52.50 N $ 52.50 Proofread Motion for Leave to File All of the activities in this Motion. Drafted proposed Order and entry relate to the email to Attorney Fabian. Filed finalization of a motion Motion and proposed order with for filing and is thus not USDC. Emailed motion and proposed impermissible block 1091 3/1/2019 DL order to judge chambers. 0.20 $ 21.00 N Block billing billing. $ 21.00

Continued drafting memorandum in Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1092 3/4/2019 VF support of motion for attorney's fees 5.70 $ 997.50 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 997.50

Finalize memorandum in support of motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Lacking appropriate detail. The description of 1094 3/5/2019 VF and supporting documentation. 3.00 $ 525.00 N LRCiv 54.2(e)(2) services is adequate. $ 525.00 Total 609 $ 64,883.13 $ 54,992.50