S. v. District of Columbia Public Schools
This text of S. v. District of Columbia Public Schools (S. v. District of Columbia Public Schools) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________ ) DAMARCUS S., by and through his ) Parent, K.S., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 15-851 (ESH) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Damarcus S. and his mother, K.S., have moved for attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.,
which grants the Court discretion to award reasonable fees to a prevailing party. See id.
§ 1415(i)(3)(B). (Pl.’s Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 25] (“Pls.’ Mot.”).) The
District of Columbia (the “District”) does not dispute that plaintiffs are entitled to fees, but it
argues that plaintiffs’ request of $212,081.51 in fees and $4,097.60 in costs is unreasonable and
should be denied in part. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. [ECF No. 27] at 3.) The Court agrees that
plaintiffs are not entitled to the full amount requested, though they are entitled to more than the
District proposes to pay. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case has been laid out in great detail in the Court’s previous
Memorandum Opinion. See Damarcus S. v. Dist. of Columbia, 2016 WL 2993158, at *1-*2
(D.D.C. May 23, 2016). As is relevant here, plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the District in December 2014, alleging that numerous deficiencies in the District’s educational
plans for Damarcus denied him a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”), to which he is
entitled under IDEA.1 Id. at *2. After an administrative Due Process Hearing in March 2015,
the Hearing Officer determined that plaintiffs were time-barred from pursuing any claims
involving conduct prior to December 16, 2012, and rejected all but one of plaintiffs’ remaining
claims on the merits. Id. As a result of the District’s failure to conduct a behavioral assessment
and put in place an intervention plan for Damarcus in 2013 and 2014, plaintiffs were awarded
(1) reimbursement for an independent behavioral evaluation of Damarcus, and (2) fifty hours of
behavioral support services. Id. But without explanation, the Hearing Officer ruled that those
behavioral-support hours would be forfeited if plaintiffs did not use them before June 30, 2016.
Id.
Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court to challenge the Hearing Officer’s adverse
determinations, and the parties then cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court found for
plaintiffs on many claims: (1) that the Hearing Officer erred in her blanket dismissal of all claims
arising out of pre-December 2012 conduct, rather than conducting an individualized analysis of
when plaintiffs knew or should have known about each claim, id. at *6; (2) that the District
denied Damarcus a FAPE in 2013 and 2014 by dramatically cutting his speech-language services
and failing to adjust his Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) in response to his
demonstrated lack of progress, id. at *12; (3) that the Hearing Officer’s compensatory award was
improperly limited as to both subject (behavioral support services) and time (the June 2016
forfeiture provision), id. at *14; (4) that the compensatory award of fifty hours was insufficient
1 Plaintiffs also filed two previous complaints that involved similar claims, but they were withdrawn prior to being adjudicated. Damarcus S., 2016 WL 2993158, at *2.
by failing to reflect the pervasive effect of Damarcus’s behavior on all aspects of his education,
id. at *14-*15; and (5) that plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement for an independent
neuropsychological evaluation of Damarcus, id. at *15. In light of deficiencies in the record, the
Court remanded to the Hearing Officer to allow the parties to more fully brief the issue of an
appropriate award of compensatory education. Id. at *12, *15.
On the other hand, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ remaining claims: (1) that Damarcus’s
2013 and 2014 IEPs were necessarily deficient because they relied on deficient
neuropsychological and speech-language evaluations, id. at *8; (2) that Damarcus was denied a
FAPE because his IEPs failed to set out measureable baselines, failed to specify that he would
receive research-based, peer-reviewed instruction, and set inappropriately low benchmarks, id. at
*9-*10; (3) that the District failed to place Damarcus in the least restrictive environment, id. at
*12; (4) that the District inappropriately implemented Damarcus’s IEPs, id. at *13; (5) that the
District’s treatment of Damarcus violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, id. at *16; and
(6) that the District should be required to immediately develop an appropriate IEP, id. at *17.
ANALYSIS
The District does not dispute plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorney’s fees, given the many
claims on which plaintiffs have prevailed. However, the District argues that the award requested
by plaintiffs is unreasonable on several grounds, which the Court will now turn to.
I. UNREASONABLE BILLING RATES
The District first argues that the hourly rates sought by plaintiffs’ attorneys and
paralegals are unreasonable. (Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 4–11.) In determining a reasonable fee award,
the Court must ensure that it is “based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action
or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C).
Plaintiffs bear the burden on this issue, as with all other aspects of their fee request. See
Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“[A] fee applicant bears
the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours, and
justifying the reasonableness of the rates[.]”).
In addition to offering their own attorneys’ affidavits, fee applicants may also “submit
attorneys’ fee matrices as one type of evidence that ‘provide[s] a useful starting point’ in
calculating the prevailing market rate.” Eley v. Dist. of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97, 100 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109). These matrices set out the hourly fees charged by
attorneys at various levels of experience in a particular community for the same type of work,
which offer a “somewhat crude” approximation of prevailing market rates. Snead v. Dist. of
Columbia, 139 F. Supp. 3d 375, 378 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Eley, 793 F.3d at 101). The most
commonly used fee matrix was the “Laffey Matrix,” which was compiled by the District United
States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) and updated annually to adjust for inflation. Eley, 793 F.3d
at 100-01. However, beginning on June 1, 2015, the USAO discontinued the Laffey Matrix in
favor of a matrix that uses a new methodology, which the Court will refer to as the “USAO
Matrix.” See USAO Attorney’s Fees Matrix – 2015 – 2016, https://www.justice.gov/usao-
dc/file/796471/download.2
Here, plaintiffs’ counsel submit an affidavit from Dennis C. McAndrews, the Managing
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________ ) DAMARCUS S., by and through his ) Parent, K.S., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 15-851 (ESH) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Damarcus S. and his mother, K.S., have moved for attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.,
which grants the Court discretion to award reasonable fees to a prevailing party. See id.
§ 1415(i)(3)(B). (Pl.’s Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 25] (“Pls.’ Mot.”).) The
District of Columbia (the “District”) does not dispute that plaintiffs are entitled to fees, but it
argues that plaintiffs’ request of $212,081.51 in fees and $4,097.60 in costs is unreasonable and
should be denied in part. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. [ECF No. 27] at 3.) The Court agrees that
plaintiffs are not entitled to the full amount requested, though they are entitled to more than the
District proposes to pay. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case has been laid out in great detail in the Court’s previous
Memorandum Opinion. See Damarcus S. v. Dist. of Columbia, 2016 WL 2993158, at *1-*2
(D.D.C. May 23, 2016). As is relevant here, plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the District in December 2014, alleging that numerous deficiencies in the District’s educational
plans for Damarcus denied him a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”), to which he is
entitled under IDEA.1 Id. at *2. After an administrative Due Process Hearing in March 2015,
the Hearing Officer determined that plaintiffs were time-barred from pursuing any claims
involving conduct prior to December 16, 2012, and rejected all but one of plaintiffs’ remaining
claims on the merits. Id. As a result of the District’s failure to conduct a behavioral assessment
and put in place an intervention plan for Damarcus in 2013 and 2014, plaintiffs were awarded
(1) reimbursement for an independent behavioral evaluation of Damarcus, and (2) fifty hours of
behavioral support services. Id. But without explanation, the Hearing Officer ruled that those
behavioral-support hours would be forfeited if plaintiffs did not use them before June 30, 2016.
Id.
Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court to challenge the Hearing Officer’s adverse
determinations, and the parties then cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court found for
plaintiffs on many claims: (1) that the Hearing Officer erred in her blanket dismissal of all claims
arising out of pre-December 2012 conduct, rather than conducting an individualized analysis of
when plaintiffs knew or should have known about each claim, id. at *6; (2) that the District
denied Damarcus a FAPE in 2013 and 2014 by dramatically cutting his speech-language services
and failing to adjust his Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) in response to his
demonstrated lack of progress, id. at *12; (3) that the Hearing Officer’s compensatory award was
improperly limited as to both subject (behavioral support services) and time (the June 2016
forfeiture provision), id. at *14; (4) that the compensatory award of fifty hours was insufficient
1 Plaintiffs also filed two previous complaints that involved similar claims, but they were withdrawn prior to being adjudicated. Damarcus S., 2016 WL 2993158, at *2.
by failing to reflect the pervasive effect of Damarcus’s behavior on all aspects of his education,
id. at *14-*15; and (5) that plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement for an independent
neuropsychological evaluation of Damarcus, id. at *15. In light of deficiencies in the record, the
Court remanded to the Hearing Officer to allow the parties to more fully brief the issue of an
appropriate award of compensatory education. Id. at *12, *15.
On the other hand, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ remaining claims: (1) that Damarcus’s
2013 and 2014 IEPs were necessarily deficient because they relied on deficient
neuropsychological and speech-language evaluations, id. at *8; (2) that Damarcus was denied a
FAPE because his IEPs failed to set out measureable baselines, failed to specify that he would
receive research-based, peer-reviewed instruction, and set inappropriately low benchmarks, id. at
*9-*10; (3) that the District failed to place Damarcus in the least restrictive environment, id. at
*12; (4) that the District inappropriately implemented Damarcus’s IEPs, id. at *13; (5) that the
District’s treatment of Damarcus violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, id. at *16; and
(6) that the District should be required to immediately develop an appropriate IEP, id. at *17.
ANALYSIS
The District does not dispute plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorney’s fees, given the many
claims on which plaintiffs have prevailed. However, the District argues that the award requested
by plaintiffs is unreasonable on several grounds, which the Court will now turn to.
I. UNREASONABLE BILLING RATES
The District first argues that the hourly rates sought by plaintiffs’ attorneys and
paralegals are unreasonable. (Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 4–11.) In determining a reasonable fee award,
the Court must ensure that it is “based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action
or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C).
Plaintiffs bear the burden on this issue, as with all other aspects of their fee request. See
Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“[A] fee applicant bears
the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours, and
justifying the reasonableness of the rates[.]”).
In addition to offering their own attorneys’ affidavits, fee applicants may also “submit
attorneys’ fee matrices as one type of evidence that ‘provide[s] a useful starting point’ in
calculating the prevailing market rate.” Eley v. Dist. of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97, 100 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109). These matrices set out the hourly fees charged by
attorneys at various levels of experience in a particular community for the same type of work,
which offer a “somewhat crude” approximation of prevailing market rates. Snead v. Dist. of
Columbia, 139 F. Supp. 3d 375, 378 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Eley, 793 F.3d at 101). The most
commonly used fee matrix was the “Laffey Matrix,” which was compiled by the District United
States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) and updated annually to adjust for inflation. Eley, 793 F.3d
at 100-01. However, beginning on June 1, 2015, the USAO discontinued the Laffey Matrix in
favor of a matrix that uses a new methodology, which the Court will refer to as the “USAO
Matrix.” See USAO Attorney’s Fees Matrix – 2015 – 2016, https://www.justice.gov/usao-
dc/file/796471/download.2
Here, plaintiffs’ counsel submit an affidavit from Dennis C. McAndrews, the Managing
Partner at their firm, which attests that these “hourly rates for attorneys of comparable
2 The USAO Matrix rates are generally higher than the previous year’s Laffey Matrix rates. Compare USAO Attorney’s Fees Matrix – 2015 – 2016, https://www.justice.gov/usao- dc/file/796471/download, with Laffey Matrix – 2014-2015, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-dc/legacy/2014/07/14/Laffey%20Matrix_2014- 2015.pdf. That said, once annual inflation is considered, the matrices are similar enough to make reliance on Laffey Matrix cases appropriate here. Indeed, the parties’ briefs tend to use the “Laffey” and “USAO” descriptors interchangeably. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 6 n.2.)
experience and skill in this area are at least equal to, and frequently exceed, the hourly rates”
they have requested. (Ex. B to Pls.’ Mot. [ECF No. 25-3] ¶ 17.) They also submit affidavits
from local attorneys who did not work on this case, stating that the rates charged by plaintiffs’
attorneys are consistent with those charged by their firms and other area firms, including in
IDEA cases. (Ex. 1 to Pls.’ Reply Br. [ECF No. 29-1] ¶¶ 13, 22; Ex. 2 to Pls.’ Reply Br. [ECF
No. 29-2] ¶ 10.) Finally, they submit the 2015-16 USAO Matrix, which reflects rates charged in
District of Columbia courts in civil cases where a fee-shifting statute permits the prevailing party
to recover “reasonable” attorney’s fees.3 (Ex. C. to Pls.’ Mot. at 1 & n.1.) The attorney rates
listed in the 2015-16 USAO Matrix are uniformly higher than those sought by plaintiffs.
(Compare Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. with Ex. C to Pl.’s Mot. at 1.)
The District argues that the rates in the Laffey or USAO Matrices should not be applied
here, because those matrices establish presumptive rates for more complex federal litigation than
typical IDEA administrative proceedings. (Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 6.) Instead, it argues that
plaintiffs should receive 75% of Laffey or USAO rates because “the overwhelming majority of
cases apply[] [such] rates to similar [IDEA] litigation, especially in cases since Eley.” (Id. at 7 &
n.4, 9.) Plaintiffs respond by citing a slew of post-Eley cases in which full Laffey or USAO rates
were awarded in IDEA cases. (See Pls.’ Reply Br. at 6 n.1.)
At the outset, it is worth repeating that plaintiffs do not seek full USAO rates, or even a
uniform percentage of them. Instead, they seek the rates customarily charged by their firm (see
Ex. B to Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 4), which vary by attorney and are uniformly lower than the USAO Matrix
rates. For instance, Dennis McAndrews’ rate of $450 is only 79% of what an attorney of his
3 By its own terms, the USAO Matrix is appropriately considered in this federal IDEA case, given the IDEA’s fee shifting provision. (See Ex. C. to Pls.’ Mot. at 1 & n.1; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B).)
experience level (38 years) would receive under the current USAO Matrix. In fact, two junior
attorneys who worked on the case are billed at rates less than 75% of the current USAO rate.
(See id. ¶ 11; Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. (billing out fourth-year attorneys at $230/hour and $240/hour,
which is 71% and 74% of the USAO rates, respectively). The highest attorney rates sought by
plaintiffs in relation to the current USAO Matrix are only 85% of those rates. (See Ex. A to Pls.’
Mot. (billing out Attorney CEM (4 years) at $275/hour, where full USAO rate is $325/hour).
Thus, the District’s argument about the applicability of full Laffey or USAO rates in IDEA
litigation is off the mark—the relevant question is whether plaintiffs have shouldered their
burden to show that the rates they actually seek are reasonable.
Moreover, plaintiffs are correct that many of the cases cited by the District involved
routine IDEA matters, and thus, a 75% Laffey rate was deemed appropriate in that context. See,
e.g., Snead, 139 F. Supp. 3d at 381 (involving an “unremarkable IDEA administrative
representation”); Joaquin v. Friendship Pub. Charter Sch., 2016 WL 3034151, at *14 (D.D.C.
May 27, 2016) (case was not “unusually complex”); Platt v. Dist. of Columbia, 2016 WL
912171, at *11 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2016) (quoting Blackman v. Dist. Of Columbia, 56 F. Supp 3d
19, 29 (D.D.C. 2014)) (case involved “no ‘novel questions of law,’ burdensome discovery issues,
or other unusual complexities”); McAllister v. Dist. of Columbia, 21 F. Supp. 3d 94, 109 (D.D.C.
2014) (finding lack of complexity in cases where, inter alia, school district either defaulted or
failed to contest issues, no administrative hearing was conducted due to settlement, or hearing
had limited number of witnesses).
Here, in contrast, the parties engaged in a two-day hearing with ten witnesses and sixty-
eight exhibits, resulting in the creation of a 1,300 page administrative record. (See Pls.’ Reply
Br. at 11; Administrative Record [ECF Nos. 12-13].) The case involved a challenging question
of statutory interpretation that was a matter of first impression in this district, which arose from
an apparent drafting error in the 2004 amendment of the IDEA. See Damarcus S., 2016 WL
2993158, at *4; see also Blackman, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 25 (“novel or complicated questions of
law” indicate complexity). The District discounts that complexity when it chides plaintiffs for
“[m]erely summarizing the reasoning of” G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, 802
F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 2015), which this Court ultimately adopted. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 8.) But
the statutory issue was apparently complex enough that both parties here actually reversed the
positions they took below. (See Def.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 16] at 13 n.6.)
Furthermore, the issue of how to properly evaluate Damarcus’s disability—whether to use a Full-
Scale IQ or General Ability Index—was complicated, something the Court’s Memorandum
Opinion expressly noted. See Damarcus S., 2016 WL 2993158, at *8 (“When considering an
issue of such complexity . . . .”). Put simply, this was not a run-of-the-mill IDEA proceeding,
and therefore, the Court finds that rates falling between 75% and 100% of Laffey / USAO Matrix
rates are reasonable.
This raises the question of which rates should serve as the appropriate point of
comparison: the current USAO rates, or the rates that applied in the years that the work was
actually performed. As noted, plaintiffs’ requested rates range from 71% to 85% of the current
USAO rates; however, when using the lower 2013-14 Laffey rates4 as a point of comparison,
those relative percentages rise to 84% to 110%. (See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot.; Ex. B to Pls.’ Mot.
(billing out Attorney MEG (25 years) at $430/hour, where full Laffey rate was $510/ hour;
billing out Attorney CEM (2 years) at $275/hour, where full Laffey rate was $250/hour). In other
4 See Laffey Matrix – 2013 – 2014, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao- dc/legacy/2013/09/09/Laffey_Matrix%202014.pdf.
words, plaintiffs seek rates for previous years’ work that occasionally exceed the Laffey rates that
applied in those years, even though they all fall below the USAO Matrix rates.
The District argues that historical Laffey rates should apply (Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 10-11),
and plaintiffs respond that the D.C. Circuit has sanctioned the application of current rates, as a
means of accounting for the delay in receiving payment, (Pls.’ Reply Br. at 14 (citing West v.
Potter, 717 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2013).) West was a Title VII case, a fact that was
expressly relevant to the result in that case. See 717 F.3d at 1034. West also notes that there is a
“strong presumption” in favor of the application of historical rates. Id.; see also Jackson-
Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, 2016 WL 1267153, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2016) (applying
historical rates); Reed v. Dist. of Columbia, 134 F. Supp. 3d 122, 137 (D.D.C. 2015) (same).
There was no unusual delay in this three-year IDEA case, no dilatory conduct on the part of the
District, and as noted, the rates requested by plaintiffs are more reasonable in comparison to
recent years’ Matrix rates than to those prior years’ rates. See West, 717 F.3d at 240 (appropriate
to apply historical rates if delay in payment was brief, or if rates sought by plaintiffs incorporate
compensation for delayed payment). The Court thus deems it appropriate to compare plaintiffs’
requested rates to those in effect at the time the work was performed. As discussed, plaintiffs are
entitled to attorneys’ rates that fall between 75%-100% of Laffey / USAO Matrix rates, so if an
attorney’s requested rate exceeds the Laffey or USAO Matrix rate for that year, it shall be capped
at the lower rate. (See, e.g., Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. (showing that Attorney CEM’s requested rate
exceeds the full Laffey rate from 2012-13 to 2014-15, and that Attorney HMH’s requested rate
exceeds the full Laffey rate in 2012-13 and 2013-14).)
One final note on rates: the above analysis has focused only on attorneys’ rates, not on
those sought for paralegals and legal assistants. Here, plaintiffs seek rates that exceed the current
USAO rate for their legal assistants and paralegals, and significantly exceed the current USAO
rate for two senior paralegals. (See Pls.’ Mot. at 8 n.4.) They argue that the extensive
experience of their senior paralegals justifies their rates—which are 20% higher than the full
USAO rate—and that their “knowledge and expertise play a vital role in the continued success
and growth” of the law firm. (See id.) However, the analysis here involves a comparison to
prevailing rates in the community, based on the type of services provided. See 20 U.S.C. §
1415(i)(3)(C). The only relevant evidence that plaintiffs themselves offer (i.e., the 2015-16
USAO Matrix) demonstrates that they seek far more for their senior paralegals than the
prevailing community rate. (See Ex. C to Pls.’ Mot. at 1 (taking no account of paralegals’ level
of experience).) Plaintiffs do not suggest that these paralegals did more complex work than
paralegals working on similar IDEA cases, such that an upward departure might be justified.
Nor do they offer any explanation as to why their other paralegals and legal assistants should be
entitled to rates that exceed the USAO Matrix. Therefore, the Court will award plaintiffs’ senior
paralegals 85% of the USAO Matrix rate ($131/hour), and their remaining paralegals and legal
assistants 75% of the USAO rate ($116/hour).
These rates are commensurate to the rates awarded to plaintiffs’ attorneys, which ranged
from 71% to 85% of the current USAO rates. They also fall below the historical Laffey rates for
previous years’ work, so they are reasonably applied throughout the course of this litigation.
II. LIMITED SUCCESS
The District next argues that plaintiffs’ fee request should be reduced 20% to reflect their
limited success in this litigation. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 11-14.) Plaintiffs in turn propose a
10% reduction on that basis. (See Pls.’ Reply Br. at 18.) The parties thus agree on the
underlying legal principle—that, because plaintiffs’ various claims are interrelated, it is
impossible to separate out the work done on unsuccessful claims, and so the Court must “simply
reduce the award to account for the limited success.” See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
436–37 (1983).
As the District concedes, plaintiffs “received much of the relief they sought.” (See Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 14.) Although the Hearing Officer must still determine the precise amount of
compensatory education that Damarcus will receive, it is beyond dispute that the award will be
significant: not only was the existing behavioral award of 50 hours deemed insufficient, but
Damarcus will also receive compensatory hours for the District’s failure to respond to his
academic difficulties, and for drastically cutting his speech-language pathology hours despite
those difficulties. See Damarcus S., 2016 WL 2993158, at *12-*15. These were both serious
failures. The Court’s statute-of-limitations ruling also makes it possible that he will receive
additional relief on remand for alleged violations that the Hearing Officer erroneously deemed
time-barred. See id. at *6. On the other side of the scale, the claims that the Court rejected were
less significant—if plaintiffs had succeeded on those claims, they would have received far less
relief. See, e.g., id. at *9-*10 (plaintiffs’ claims regarding IEP baselines, IEP goals, and
specificity of IEPs, even if theoretically plausible, failed because they caused no injury); id. at
*16 (if successful, plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim would only have entitled them to expert
witness fees). Therefore, in light of the fact that plaintiffs received a substantial majority of the
relief they sought, the Court finds that a 15% reduction of the total fee award is appropriate.
III. BILLING PRACTICES
The District takes issue with three billing practices reflected in plaintiffs’ invoice,
arguing that the use of these practices warrants a further 25% reduction of the total fee award.
(Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 14-17.)
First, it asserts that plaintiffs’ invoice calculates time to the eighth of an hour, rather than
“the industry-norm of billing to the tenth of an hour,” resulting in a less accurate bill. (Id. at 15.)
It is certainly true that the award may “be reduced to account for any inaccuracies and
overbilling that may have occurred as a result of [plaintiffs’] unacceptable timekeeping habits.”
See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOJ, 825 F. Supp. 2d 226, 231
(D.D.C. 2011) (citing Berkeley v. Home Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1409, 1419–20 (D.C.Cir.1995)).
However, the only cases cited by the District involved courts’ disapproval of billing to quarter-
hour increments. See, e.g., Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. DHS, 810 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278–79
(D.D.C. 2011); A.C. ex rel. Clark v. Dist. of Columbia, 674 F. Supp. 2d 149, 157 (D.D.C. 2009);
Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37, 44 n.5 (D.D.C. 1999), abrogated on other
grounds by Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532
U.S. 598, 610 (2001). Nor has the Court located any cases in which billing to the eighth of an
hour has been disapproved. In fact, courts in this district have expressly approved billing to the
sixth of an hour. See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOJ, 142 F.
Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2015); see also Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v.
FEC, 66 F. Supp. 3d 134, 150 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting “a preference for time records that are, at
most, in quarter-hour increments”). Thus, there is simply no basis to argue that plaintiffs’ billing
to the eighth of an hour is improper.
Second, the District argues that rounding errors have inflated plaintiffs’ invoice. (Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 15-16.) In particular, it points out that plaintiffs’ invoice reflects a total of 621.11
hours worked, when in reality it should be 618.125. (Id.) This “total hours” figure was not used
to calculate the total fee request, and therefore it is wholly irrelevant. Plaintiffs arrived at their
fee request by multiplying each individual time entry by the appropriate rate—which the District
acknowledges they did correctly (id. at 15)—and then they added the correct individual amounts
together. (See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot.) It would have been impossible to calculate the total fee
request using the total hours figure, because each attorney charged a different rate and thus the
multiplier would have varied. As a result, no purported rounding errors affected plaintiffs’ total
fee request.5
Finally, plaintiffs assert that a reduction is warranted due to the invoice’s inappropriate
use of block billing. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 16-17.) Block billing involves lumping multiple
tasks into a single time entry, which can “mak[e] it impossible to evaluate their reasonableness.”
Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2004). There is no question
that plaintiffs’ invoice is completely block-billed throughout—it groups all tasks performed by
each attorney into a single daily time entry. (See, e.g., Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. at 49-50 (billing 2.75
hours on fifteen different tasks); id. at 104 (billing two hours on seven different tasks); id. at 119
(billing 7.5 hours on four different tasks); id. at 119-20 (billing 7.875 hours on eight different
tasks).) Plaintiffs do not dispute this, but they argue that “there is no prohibition in this Circuit
on ‘block billing’ and the use of this practice does not result in a fee reduction where the
descriptions within the time entries are otherwise sufficiently detailed and reasonable.” (See
Pls.’ Reply Br. at 20.) They also state that block billing is the result of the computer program
used by McAndrews Law Offices, arguing that this practice is more efficient. (Id. at 22.)
5 The District also goes to the trouble of asserting an overage of $2.135, which it apparently arrived at by adding fractions of pennies that plaintiffs rounded up. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 16 n.8.) Even if the District had adequately shown how it reached that figure, the Court is concerned with determining a reasonable overall award, not with fractions of pennies that add up to less than the price of a cup of coffee. Cf. Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870, 880 (2014) (discussing the doctrine of “de minimis non curat lex (the law does not take account of trifles)”).
Plaintiffs’ efforts to defend block billing are unpersuasive, particularly considering that
they bear the burden of justifying their fee request. See Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107. Although it
is of course true that block billing is not “prohibit[ed],” it is also true that courts often reduce fee
awards as a result of it. See, e.g., Role Models Am., Inc., 353 F.3d at 971; Bennett v. Castro, 74
F. Supp. 3d 382, 406 (D.D.C. 2014); In re InPhonic, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 273, 289 (D.D.C.
2009); Summers v. Howard Univ., 2006 WL 751316, at *7 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2006). The reason
for this is obvious: even if tasks are adequately described, there is simply no way for the Court to
assess whether the time spent on each of those tasks was reasonable. See Role Models Am., Inc.,
353 F.3d at 970 (quoting In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (court must
“determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably
expended”). Where the number of tasks and blocks of time are small, the risk of inaccuracy is
also small—if an attorney spends a half-hour emailing opposing counsel and reviewing her
response, the Court can be reasonably assured that the time spent was justified. However, if the
attorney spends 10.8 hours researching standing, emailing co-counsel, revising a brief, and
teleconferencing with the client, the Court lacks that same assurance. Did the research take nine
hours? Was it a four-hour teleconference? The Court has no idea.
By the same token, the efficiency of block billing is irrelevant, as is the type of computer
system used by plaintiffs’ firm—even if plaintiffs’ attorneys might benefit from block billing, the
Court is concerned here only with their ability to justify their fee request. This particular invoice
fails to adequately do that. If it had relied on block billing infrequently, a reduction might not be
warranted, see Fitts v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 680 F. Supp. 2d 38, 42 (D.D.C. 2010)
(declining a reduction where only a “relatively small fraction” of entries were block-billed), but
this entire invoice here is block-billed. As a result, the Court will reduce plaintiffs’ total award
by an additional 5%.
IV. NON-COMPENSABLE TIME
The District takes issue with numerous entries that it argues are either wholly non-
compensable or improperly billed: time related to resolution sessions meetings (RSMs); time
spent on plaintiffs’ earlier administrative complaints, which they voluntarily withdrew; attorney
travel time; and time that the District alleges is related to plaintiffs’ ongoing concerns rather than
the instant litigation.
A. Resolution Session Meetings
The District argues that plaintiffs should not be reimbursed for time spent preparing for,
or participating in, RSMs. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 17-19 (quoting 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii) (“A meeting conducted pursuant to subsection (f)(1)(B)(i) shall not be
considered a meeting convened as a result of an administrative hearing or judicial action or an
administrative hearing or judicial action for purposes of [20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)].”)).) In
response, plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their request for time spent participating in the
RSMs, but they insist that time spent preparing for those sessions is fully compensable. (See
Pls.’ Reply Br. at 23-24.)
Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii), when read in context with other provisions in that section,
prohibits any award for time spent preparing for an RSM. See Howard v. Achievement
Preparatory Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 2016 WL 1212409, at *14 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2016);
Brandon E. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 4602533, at *7 (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2008); see also Mars
Area Sch. Dist. v. C. L., 2015 WL 8207463, at *6 n.5 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2015) (citing cases)
(noting that it is “well-established” that fees related to RSMs are non-compensable). First, an
RSM is a meeting of the IEP team. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i) (defining an RSM as “a
meeting with the parents and the relevant member or members of the IEP Team”). Next, an
award of attorney’s fees is prohibited if it “relat[es] to any meeting of the IEP team unless such
meeting is convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action.” See id.
§ 1415(i)(3)(D)(ii). Thus, time spent preparing for an RSM—which “relat[es] to [a] meeting of
the IEP Team”—would only be compensable if the exception applies, i.e., if the RSM was
“convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action.” See id. However, the
very next provision makes clear that this exception does not apply to an RSM, which “shall not
be considered . . . a meeting convened as a result of an administrative hearing or judicial action.”
See id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii)(I).
The Court recognizes that this issue is not entirely clear-cut. See Y.B. v. Williamson Cty.
Bd. of Educ., 2009 WL 4061311, at *25 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 20, 2009). Even acknowledging the
minor statutory inconsistency—Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(ii) uses the phrase “convened as a result of
an administrative proceeding,” while Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii) says “convened as a result of an
administrative hearing”—the Court concludes that it is simply a result of imprecise drafting. Cf.
G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, 802 F.3d 601, 624 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding that
an inconsistency in another part of Section 1415 was the result of a drafting error). The
linguistic structure of the exception in (D)(ii) is otherwise identical to the structure in (D)(iii),
giving rise to a strong inference that the two provisions were meant to be read in tandem. After
all, standing alone, the RSM provision in (D)(iii) has no apparent effect—it is only given
meaning if an RSM is an IEP meeting for which attorneys cannot recover for. There is simply
no other way to explain its presence in a subsection entitled “Prohibition of attorneys’ fees and
related costs for certain services.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii).
Therefore, plaintiffs’ request for RSM preparation fees is denied.6
B. Time Spent on “Earlier Cases”
In May 2013 and January 2014, plaintiffs filed and later voluntarily withdrew two
administrative complaints against the District, prior to the December 2014 filing of the complaint
at issue here. See Damarcus S., 2016 WL 2993158, at *2 (D.D.C. May 23, 2016). As the Court
previously noted, the May 2013 complaint raised “basically the same issues” as those raised
here, while the January 2014 complaint sought an independent evaluation for which plaintiffs
were ultimately awarded reimbursement here. Id. at *2, *15. The District argues that plaintiffs
are not entitled to any reimbursement for work done prior to November 6, 2014, because that
work related to “earlier cases” in which plaintiffs were not the prevailing party. (See Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 19-20.) Plaintiffs respond that these do not represent different cases at all, but
instead are intertwined with the current litigation, such that full reimbursement is appropriate.
(See Pls.’ Reply Br. at 24-25.)
Although the District is correct that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties in their earlier
complaints, that is not the relevant issue here. The issue is whether the work performed prior to
November 6, 2014 is reasonably compensable as a result of their success in this litigation. See
20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(3)(b)(i). The District does not dispute the interrelatedness of the issues
raised in the withdrawn complaints and those raised here, nor could it. Thus, there is no question
that much of that earlier work contributed to plaintiffs’ success in this litigation, and as a result,
the District’s argument for a full reduction fails. Nevertheless, the Court finds that plaintiffs are
6 Plaintiffs note that their RSM preparation fees are block billed together with unrelated, compensable fees. (See Pls.’ Reply Br. at 24.) This is yet another drawback of block billing. See Role Models Am., Inc., 353 F.3d at 971. The Court will thus approximate the amount of time in those block entries that remain compensable and award only those fees.
not entitled to full reimbursement, given that the withdrawal of those complaints prolonged the
overall litigation by roughly nineteen months. Despite plaintiffs’ argument that “[a]ll of the
work that went into the initial Due Process complaints was directly relevant to this litigation”
(Pls.’ Reply. Br. at 25), there is no question that this nineteen-month delay created much
additional work, even if it was technically “relevant” to this litigation. (See, e.g., Ex. A to Pls.’
Mot. at 23 (charges for preparation of second complaint); id. at 26 (charges related to Prehearing
Conference that was later rendered unnecessary by withdrawal).) To account for this self-
imposed delay, which is not reasonably charged to the District, the Court will reduce plaintiffs’
pre-November 6, 2014 award by 20%.
C. Attorney Travel Time
Plaintiffs concede that their fee request improperly bills attorney travel time at a full rate,
as opposed to the proper 50% rate. (See Pls.’ Reply Br. at 25; see also McAllister v. Dist. of
Columbia, 21 F. Supp. 3d 94, 106 (D.D.C. 2014) (“[I]n this Circuit, travel time is compensated at
half of the attorney’s rate.”). Plaintiffs’ award will be reduced accordingly.
D. Unrelated Time
The District challenges numerous charges incurred after February 17, 2016, which it
argues are unrelated to the instant litigation and therefore non-compensable. (See Def.’s Opp’n
Br. at 22-23 & Table 3.) Plaintiffs argue that these entries are clearly related, because they
concern
(a) counsel’s efforts to implement the Hearing Officer’s and this Court’s award of compensatory education, including through communications with counsel for the District; (b) preparation for the upcoming Due Process hearing on remand ordered by this Court; (c) efforts to settle the instant litigation; or (d) the instant federal court proceedings.
(Pls.’ Reply Br. at 27.)
Time entries that fall into the latter two categories are compensable at the rates already
approved by the Court. However, the Court’s determination of reasonable rates took into
account only the complexity of the litigation to the point of judgment (i.e., May 23, 2016), and
those are not directly applicable to the former two categories. The Court is not inclined to
address in piecemeal fashion the fees performed on remand and in implementing relief: the
process is still ongoing, and, at this juncture, the Court cannot determine the complexity of the
legal work involved.
Moreover, the invoice plainly reflects that certain entries fall outside of the four
categories listed by plaintiffs, and thus, they are not compensable. It is unclear, for instance,
how work related to future IEP meetings; Damarcus’s current mental health and residence;
“alerts;” “Department of Revenue check[s];” or Damarcus’s current IEP, FBA, evaluations, or
medical referrals have anything to do with this litigation. (See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. at 96-118.)
Again, these non-compensable entries have been block-billed with compensable entries.
Therefore, as with the time plaintiffs claimed for RSMs, the Court will approximate the
necessary reduction of each blocked entry.
V. OVER-STAFFING
Finally, in one short paragraph, the District argues that plaintiffs overstaffed the case.
(See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 21.) It notes that five senior attorneys and three junior attorneys worked
on the case over the course of the litigation, and that at times “two professionals perform[ed] the
same task.” (Id. at 21 & n.14.) However, a look at the “duplicative” entries flagged by the
District reveals nothing improper. For instance, on June 11, 2014, the task that two professionals
performed was communicating with one another. (See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. at 34.) Of course,
both attorneys could properly bill for that time. And regardless of the total number of attorneys
that touched the case, the invoice reflects that a single attorney was responsible for the majority
of charges at any one point in time, something the District itself acknowledges. (See Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 21 n.15.) The District’s argument for a reduction on this basis is not well-taken.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge
Date: August 30, 2016
Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 1 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
ed
d d ed
d
ar ed te
d m
ed te im
te
w di
im or
im di ls
di
A
es re la e
rf
re la a
re la at
C
ot d iti
C Pe
eC
te eC D
N In
rs
us k
at ou
Fe or
Fe
dj R
R H
H W
A Rate reduced to 85% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 01/09/13 JH client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 85% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 01/14/13 JH client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 01/16/13 DCM Review of Intake 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 45.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of Intake Rate reduced to 85% Preparation of correspondence to USAO; Fee reduced by 01/16/13 JH client 0.625 0.625 185.00 131.00 115.63 81.88 65.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 85% Review of file materials USAO; Fee reduced by 01/18/13 JH regarding School District records 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (12-13); Fee reduced by 01/24/13 CEM client regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Telephone communication with D. Hodges Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of memorandum to (12-13); Fee reduced by 01/31/13 CEM file 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (12-13); Fee reduced by 02/01/13 CEM client 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of correspondence from Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 02/06/13 HBK D. Hodges 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 02/06/13 CEM Review of records 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding police Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 02/07/13 HBK charges and status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 129.00 11/6/14)
Telephone communications with client Review of records Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (12-13); Fee reduced by 02/07/13 CEM D. Hodges 0.625 0.625 275.00 245.00 171.88 153.13 122.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey M. Buczkowski regarding (12-13); Fee reduced by 02/12/13 CEM discipline 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (12-13); Fee reduced by 02/21/13 CEM client regarding discipline issues 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 2 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding IEP meeting and need for evaluation Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/01/13 CEM regarding IEP meeting 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of file materials Update case status Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding IEP (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/02/13 CEM Meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding IEP and (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/04/13 CEM evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding job and (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/08/13 CEM services 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/14/13 CEM Preparation of File Review 0.500 0.500 275.00 245.00 137.50 122.50 98.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 85% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 03/15/13 JH client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey J. Hardy regarding scheduling (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/15/13 CEM Initial client meeting 0.750 0.750 275.00 245.00 206.25 183.75 147.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of records Preparation for, travel to and Hours reduced (travel); attendance at initial client Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 03/15/13 HBK meeting 3.625 3.250 430.00 430.00 1,558.75 1,397.50 1,118.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/25/13 CEM client regarding representation 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews and M. Buczkowski regarding representation and Due Process Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 03/26/13 HBK Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to client regarding representation Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and M. Rate reduced to Laffey Buczkowski regarding same and (12-13); Fee reduced by 03/26/13 CEM Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 03/27/13 MM Preparation of File Chronology 0.375 0.375 140.00 116.00 52.50 43.50 34.80 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 3 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/03/13 HBK Process Request 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Hobson, regarding update and Due Process Complaint Review of records Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/05/13 CEM Complaint 5.125 5.125 275.00 245.00 1,409.38 1,255.63 1,004.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/08/13 HBK Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 04/08/13 MM client 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding representation Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/08/13 CEM Complaint 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/09/13 HBK Process Request 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Review of correspondence from USAO; Fee reduced by 04/09/13 MM client 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% regarding representation and USAO; Fee reduced by 04/09/13 JH Releases 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 26.20 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding representation and Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey M. Buczkowski regarding (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/09/13 CEM meeting and representation 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey counsel, M. Hobson regarding (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/15/13 CEM Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review and revise Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/22/13 CEM Complaint 0.500 0.500 275.00 245.00 137.50 122.50 98.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 4 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of sample Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/23/13 CEM Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/25/13 HBK Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14) Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/25/13 CEM Complaint format 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey M. Hobson regarding Due (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/26/13 CEM Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 04/30/13 CEM Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding Due (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/05/13 CEM Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/06/13 HBK records 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/06/13 CEM Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski and F. Hobson Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/07/13 CEM Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, C. McAndrews and M. Buczkowski regarding Due Process Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/08/13 HBK Complaint 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14) Review and revise Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, H.B. Konkler- Rate reduced to Laffey Goldsmith and M. Buczkowski (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/08/13 CEM regarding same 1.625 1.625 275.00 245.00 446.88 398.13 318.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/09/13 HBK Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey Complaint (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/09/13 CEM Review and revise same 1.500 1.500 275.00 245.00 412.50 367.50 294.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 5 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Due Process (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/10/13 CEM Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with M. Hobson regarding Due Process Complaint Revise Due Process Complaint Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding meeting with school Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey M. Buczkowski regarding (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/13/13 CEM meeting 1.375 1.375 275.00 245.00 378.13 336.88 269.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication with M. Hobson regarding same Preparation of Due Process Complaint Interoffice communications with M. Buczkowski regarding same and meeting Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/14/13 CEM D. Hodges regarding meeting 0.875 0.875 275.00 245.00 240.63 214.38 171.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/15/13 CEM regarding meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 05/16/13 MM D. Hodges 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of Due Process Complaint Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding meeting Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/16/13 CEM D. Hodges regarding same 0.875 0.875 275.00 245.00 240.63 214.38 171.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding job Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/17/13 HBK placement 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/17/13 CEM regarding MDT meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 6 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding MDT (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/20/13 CEM meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondences from Student Hearing Office regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey counsel, M. Washington, (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/21/13 CEM regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process Telephone communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/22/13 HBK counsel 0.750 0.750 430.00 430.00 322.50 322.50 258.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communications with USAO; Fee reduced by 05/22/13 MM client 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Student Hearing Office regarding scheduling Telephone communication with counsel Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Hearing and IEE Interoffice communication with M. Hobson regarding Due Process Hearing Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding same Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey Hearing Officer and M. (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/22/13 CEM Washington 2.250 2.250 275.00 245.00 618.75 551.25 441.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 05/23/13 MM client 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 85% Review of file materials USAO; Fee reduced by 05/23/13 JH regarding Due Process 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 7 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communication with M. Hobson regarding scheduling Due Process Hearing Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski and J. Hardy regarding same Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to Student Hearing Office Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (12-13); Fee reduced by 05/23/13 CEM Hearing Officer Massey 0.875 0.875 275.00 245.00 240.63 214.38 171.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/24/13 HBK Process 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Hours reduced (RSM); C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/28/13 HBK Resolution Session 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Review of 2012 Jones ADR Agreement Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding Due Process Hearing Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Resolution Session, DCPS Response and records Review of DCPS Response to Due Process Complaint Review of correspondence from counsel regarding records Telephone communication with client regarding Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding same Hours reduced (RSM); Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey M. Hobson regarding School (12-13); Fee reduced 05/28/13 CEM District negotiations 1.625 1.125 275.00 245.00 446.88 275.63 220.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Hours reduced (RSM); C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/29/13 HBK Resolution Session 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 8 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Resolution Session and Records Request Telephone communication with C. Ahaghotu regarding Hours reduced (RSM); Resolution Session Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (12-13); Fee reduced 05/29/13 CEM counsel 0.625 0.000 275.00 245.00 171.88 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Hours reduced (RSM); regarding Resolution Meeting Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (12-13); Fee reduced 05/31/13 CEM counsel 0.500 0.000 275.00 245.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey C. Ahaghotu regarding (13-14); Fee reduced 06/03/13 CEM Resolution Session 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding resolution Hours reduced (RSM); Review of correspondence from Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/04/13 HBK DCPS 0.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 215.00 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from C. Ahaghotu regarding Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahagotu regarding same Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Hours reduced (RSM); regarding Resolution Session Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (13-14); Fee reduced 06/04/13 CEM D. Defino regarding same 0.875 0.000 275.00 250.00 240.63 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from C. Ahaghotu regarding Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding same Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding Hours reduced (RSM); Resolution Session Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (13-14); Fee reduced 06/05/13 CEM counsel 0.500 0.000 275.00 250.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 9 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communications with M. Buczkowski regarding Hours reduced (RSM); Resolution Session Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced 06/06/13 CEM client regarding same 0.500 0.000 275.00 250.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Hours reduced (RSM); Telephone communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/06/13 MM client 0.125 0.000 140.00 116.00 17.50 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review of case law regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 06/07/13 CEM compensatory education 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 06/13/13 CEM regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Review of Scheduling Order Review of file materials Update case status Telephone communication with Hours reduced (RSM); D. Hodges regarding Resolution Rate reduced to Laffey Session and Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced 06/14/13 CEM Hearing 0.500 0.250 275.00 250.00 137.50 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 10 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding records and Resolution Session Review of correspondence from C. Anaghotu regarding Resolution Session Telephone communications with client regarding same Interoffice communication with J. Bradley and D. Beer regarding scheduling Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding pre-hearing conference Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding same Review of correspondence from A. Terry regarding facilitated resolution Preparation of correspondence to A. Terry regarding same Preparation of correspondence to C. Anaghotu regarding Resolution Session Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondences Rate reduced to Laffey to Hearing Officer regarding pre- (13-14); Fee reduced 06/17/13 CEM hearing conference 2.125 1.125 275.00 250.00 584.38 281.25 225.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondences to Hearing Officer Massey regarding prehearing conference Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding same Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding records Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, to Rate reduced to Laffey Hearing Officer regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 06/18/13 CEM prehearing 1.125 1.130 275.00 250.00 309.38 282.50 226.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Hours reduced (RSM); Review of correspondence from Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/19/13 HBK DCPS 0.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 215.00 0.00 0.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 11 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding records Telephone communication with Hours reduced (RSM); counsel, M. Washington, Rate reduced to Laffey regarding records and Resolution (13-14); Fee reduced 06/19/13 CEM Meeting 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from C. Ahaghotu regarding resolution session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding same Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey counsel (13-14); Fee reduced 06/20/13 CEM Facilitate resolution session 0.750 0.000 275.00 250.00 206.25 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondences from counsel, M. Washington, regarding records, Resolution Session and settlement Preparation of correspondences to counsel regarding same Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding settlement, Due Process Hearing, pro hac vice and Five-Day Notices Interoffice communication with L. Mehalick regarding pro hac vice Research regarding same Telephone communications with Hours reduced (RSM); client regarding settlement Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Motion to Admit (13-14); Fee reduced 06/21/13 CEM Pro Hac Vice 2.500 2.000 275.00 250.00 687.50 500.00 400.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Interoffice communications with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 06/22/13 CEM regarding same 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 06/23/13 CEM client regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process Hearing Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/24/13 HBK Preparation for same 1.750 1.750 430.00 430.00 752.50 752.50 602.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 12 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and D. Weidman regarding DC Bar Application and Due Process Hearing Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding settlement and Due Process Hearing Telephone communications with client regarding Due Process Hearing and settlement Preparation of correspondences to counsel, M. Washington, regarding records and Facilitated Resolution Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding Hours reduced (RSM); Resolution Session Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of pro hac vice (13-14); Fee reduced 06/24/13 CEM Motion 1.625 1.500 275.00 250.00 446.88 375.00 300.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Pre-Hearing Conference Review of correspondence from Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/25/13 HBK Hearing Officer 1.250 1.250 430.00 430.00 537.50 537.50 430.00 11/6/14)
Travel to school to pick up records Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding prehearing conference Review of Prehearing Conference Notice Review of School District records Attend prehearing conference Telephone communication with counsel Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Hearing and pro hac vice Preparation of correspondence to Hours reduced (travel); counsel Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced 06/25/13 CEM client 4.125 4.000 275.00 250.00 1,168.75 1,000.00 800.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey C. Ahagotu regarding resolution (13-14); Fee reduced 06/26/13 CEM session 0.500 0.000 275.00 250.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 13 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding settlement Telephone communication with counsel, M. Washington, Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/28/13 HBK regarding same 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding settlement and Five- Day Notices Telephone communication with counsel Review of Prehearing Order Preparation of correspondence to counsel Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 06/28/13 CEM client 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding resolution session Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey counsel (13-14); Fee reduced 06/30/13 CEM Preparation for hearing 2.500 2.000 275.00 250.00 687.50 500.00 400.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 07/01/13 MM client 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation for, travel to and attendance at Resolution Session Review of correspondence from counsel Hours reduced (RSM); Review of correspondence from Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 07/01/13 HBK Hearing Officer 6.000 0.250 430.00 430.00 2,580.00 107.50 86.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 14 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding resolution session Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding same Review of correspondence from counsel Telephone communication with client Preparation of Five-Day Notices Research regarding Notices to appear and expert witnesses Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding Resolution Session Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding withdrawal, S/L Pathologist and Due Process Hearing Preparation for Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer Massey regarding witnesses Preparation of correspondence to colleagues regarding withdrawal of Due Process Complaint Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding witnesses Review of correspondence from A. Crawford regarding Hours reduced (RSM); Resolution Session Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Motion to (13-14); Fee reduced 07/01/13 CEM Withdraw 6.250 3.000 275.00 250.00 1,718.75 750.00 600.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Preparation and filing of Five- USAO; Fee reduced by 07/02/13 MM Day Notices 0.500 0.500 140.00 116.00 70.00 58.00 46.40 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 07/02/13 DW Preparation of file contents 4.000 4.000 130.00 116.00 520.00 464.00 371.20 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding withdrawal of Due Process Complaint and Five-Day Notices Rate reduced to Laffey Interoffice communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/02/13 CEM M. Buczkowski regarding same 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of correspondence from Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 07/03/13 HBK Hearing Officer 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 15 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of Order of Withdrawal Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/03/13 CEM regarding resolution session 0.250 0.130 275.00 250.00 68.75 32.50 26.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with T. Sterling regarding redacted report Research S/L evaluators Telephone communication with Scottish Rite Center for Hearing and Speech regarding evaluators Telephone communication with National Speech/Language Therapy Center regarding evaluators Preparation of correspondence to National S/L Therapy Center regarding evaluators Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey T. Sterling regarding S/L (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/09/13 CEM evaluation 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 07/10/13 HBK Process Hearing and IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE Review of correspondences from National Speech regarding IEE Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding compensatory education case law, Due Process Hearing and IEE Preparation of correspondences Rate reduced to Laffey to National Speech regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/10/13 CEM IEE 1.375 1.375 275.00 250.00 378.13 343.75 275.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/15/13 CEM regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/22/13 CEM K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 16 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey Conaboy & Assoicates regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 07/30/13 CEM S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Compilation and review of records for evaluator Telephone communication with client Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/02/13 CEM K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 08/06/13 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/06/13 CEM regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/11/13 CEM Preparation of IEE Request 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/12/13 CEM Preparation of IEE Request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 08/14/13 HBK request 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Preparation of records for USAO; Fee reduced by 08/14/13 DW conference call 0.125 0.125 130.00 116.00 16.25 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/14/13 CEM regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 08/16/13 JTN regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 240.00 240.00 30.00 30.00 24.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 08/16/13 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 08/16/13 MM Revise and file IEE request 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of IEE request Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding same Preparation of correspondence to counsel Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/16/13 CEM regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 17 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding IEE Telephone communication with client regarding same Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding client contact Preparation of correspondence to client regarding communication and IEE Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding client communication Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 08/26/13 CEM K. Conaboy regarding IEE 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from K. Marcus regarding IEE request Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding client communication Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding client (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/03/13 CEM contact 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding client Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 09/04/13 HBK contact and IEE request 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding client contact Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding client contact Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding client contact and IEE (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/04/13 CEM request 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with R. Paul regarding client contact information Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding client communication Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/05/13 CEM D. Hodges regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding contact (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/09/13 CEM with client 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 18 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding client (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/12/13 CEM communication 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% C. McAndrews regarding S/L USAO; Fee reduced by 09/13/13 MM evaluation 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding client Rate reduced to Laffey communication, IEE Request (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/13/13 CEM and S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 09/16/13 MM client 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding client (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/24/13 CEM communication 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 09/26/13 CEM client 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/02/13 CEM regarding IEE request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 10/08/13 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to K. Marcus and M. Washington regarding IEE Review of correspondence from M. Washington regarding IEE Request Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/08/13 CEM regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington, regarding same Preparation of correspondences to K. Conaboy regarding S/L evaluation Rate reduced to Laffey Review of file materials K. (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/09/13 CEM Conaboy regarding same 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 19 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding FBA Telephone communications with client regarding evaluation Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington, regarding same Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/10/13 CEM counsel regarding evaluation 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 10/14/13 HBK request 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/14/13 CEM regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/23/13 CEM counsel 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/24/13 CEM compensatory education 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Conaboy & Assoc. regarding S/L IEE Preparation of correspondence to Conaboy & Assoc. regarding same Interoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey M. Buczkowski regarding S/L (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/28/13 CEM IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 10/30/13 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Research regarding IEE providers Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 10/30/13 CEM Dr. Iseman regarding IEE 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/01/13 CEM client 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 20 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation and school Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding contact with client Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey K. Conaboy regarding S/L (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/05/13 CEM evaluation 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client regarding IEE and behaviors Preparation of correspondence to K. Marcus regarding FBA and IEE Rate reduced to Laffey Review of records regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/08/13 CEM current school year 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communications with Rate reduced to Laffey D. Hodges regarding contact (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/12/13 CEM information 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding communication with client and IEE Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey K. Marcus regarding IEE (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/13/13 CEM Request 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding S/L Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 11/20/13 HBK IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Review of S/L IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/20/13 CEM K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/21/13 CEM K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Preparation of Due Process USAO; Fee reduced by 11/25/13 PW Complaint 2.000 2.000 130.00 116.00 260.00 232.00 185.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey P. Wedderburn regarding Due (13-14); Fee reduced by 11/25/13 CEM Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced by 12/06/13 CEM Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 21 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced by 12/16/13 CEM Complaint 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 01/08/14 HBK evaluation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/08/14 CEM regarding private evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 01/10/14 HBK Review of records 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey P. Wedderburn regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/10/14 CEM evaluations 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of evaluations Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/11/14 CEM regarding IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/17/14 CEM D. Hodges regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 01/20/14 HBK evaluation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/20/14 CEM regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/24/14 CEM Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/27/14 CEM Complaint 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review and revise Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/28/14 HMH Complaint 0.375 0.375 380.00 360.00 142.50 135.00 108.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with H. Hulse regarding Due Process Complaint revisions Telephone communications with client regarding Due Process Complaint, progress, IEP Meeting and FBA Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Due Process (13-14); Fee reduced by 01/29/14 CEM Complaint 1.375 1.375 275.00 250.00 378.13 343.75 275.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 22 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with DCPS Scheduler regarding RSM Review of correspondence from SHO regarding Hearing Officer Appointment Notice Hours reduced (RSM); Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey Hearing Officer Massey (13-14); Fee reduced 02/03/14 CEM regarding Initial Order 0.375 0.125 275.00 250.00 103.13 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of correspondence from client Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 02/04/14 CEM client 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding scheduling resolution meeting Hours reduced (RSM); Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey T. Ingram regarding scheduling (13-14); Fee reduced 02/05/14 CEM resolution meeting 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client Hours reduced (RSM); Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey T. Ingram regarding scheduling (13-14); Fee reduced 02/06/14 CEM resolution meeting 0.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Hours reduced (RSM); Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey T. Ingram regarding scheduling (13-14); Fee reduced 02/07/14 CEM RSM 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced 02/08/14 CEM client 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communications with client regarding IEP Meeting, behavior, RSM and discipline Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEP Meeting Review of correspondence from Hours reduced (RSM); T. Ingram regarding RSM Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced 02/10/14 CEM T. Ingram regarding same 0.500 0.130 275.00 250.00 137.50 32.50 26.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 23 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of DCPS Response to Due Process Complaint Review of text messages from Rate reduced to Laffey teacher to parent regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 02/12/14 CEM behavior 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to Hours reduced (RSM); T. Ingram regarding RSM Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced 02/13/14 CEM client regarding same 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from client regarding RSM Telephone communication with Hours reduced (RSM); client regarding same Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced 02/14/14 CEM client regarding RSM 0.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Telephone communication with Hours reduced (RSM); client regarding Resolution Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 02/18/14 DD Meeting 0.125 0.000 145.00 116.00 18.13 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding RSM Telephone communication with Hours reduced (RSM); D. Hodges regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey Process Complaint and (13-14); Fee reduced 02/18/14 CEM discipline 0.250 0.130 275.00 250.00 68.75 32.50 26.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Telephone communication with client Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondence to Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 02/19/14 DD client 0.125 0.000 145.00 116.00 18.13 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding scheduling resolution meeting Review of correspondence from T. Ingram regarding scheduling Hours reduced (RSM); Due Process Hearing Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced 02/19/14 CEM T. Ingram regarding same 0.375 0.125 275.00 250.00 103.13 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communications with Hours reduced (RSM); client regarding Resolution Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 02/20/14 DD Meeting 0.250 0.000 145.00 116.00 36.25 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding RSM Telephone communication with client regarding same and IEP Hours reduced (RSM); Meeting Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced 02/20/14 CEM T. Ingram regarding RSM 0.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 24 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Hours reduced (RSM); Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced 02/21/14 CEM regarding RSM and IEP 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Hours reduced (RSM); DCPS resolution scheduler to Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 02/26/14 DD confirm 2/27 session 0.125 0.000 145.00 116.00 18.13 0.00 0.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding resolution Hours reduced (RSM); meeting Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced 02/26/14 CEM client 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with M. Smith regarding RSM Hours reduced (RSM); Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey client (13-14); Fee reduced 02/27/14 CEM Travel to and attendance at RSM 2.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 653.13 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding Prehearing Conference Review of correspondence from counsel Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer Massey regarding Prehearing Conference Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 02/28/14 CEM regarding attorneys fees 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey M. Smith regarding request for (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/01/14 CEM FBA and increase in IEE rate 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (13-14); Fee reduced 03/05/14 CEM DCPS regarding RSM 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondences from Hearing Officer Massey regarding Prehearing Conference Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding same Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey Hearing Officer regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/06/14 CEM Prehearing Conference 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 25 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding Prehearing Conference Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey Hearing Officer Massey (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/07/14 CEM regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Prehearing Conference Notice Preparation of correspondence Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Prehearing Conference (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/11/14 CEM Order 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Prehearing Conference Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer Massey and L. Smalls regarding witnesses Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/12/14 CEM counsel 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/13/14 CEM colleagues regarding IEE rates 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of Prehearing Conference Order Review of correspondences from Hearing Officer Massey regarding same Preparation of Motion for Summary Judgment Review of correspondences from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding evaluations and Prehearing Conference Order Preparation of correspondences to Hearing Officer regarding Prehearing Conference Order Research regarding DC IEE providers Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding redacted reports Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding evaluation, Due Rate reduced to Laffey Process Hearing and withdrawal (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/14/14 CEM of Due Process Complaint 2.125 2.130 275.00 250.00 584.38 532.50 426.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 26 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding Prehearing Order Telephone communication with counsel, L. Smalls, regarding withdrawal Telephone communication with client regarding same Preparation of correspondence to client regarding evaluations and withdrawal Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/18/14 CEM Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client regarding withdrawal Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn regarding evaluation Telephone communication with Dr. Levisohn regarding same Preparation of Motion to Withdraw Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/19/14 CEM regarding same 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 03/21/14 HBK suspension 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/21/14 CEM regarding suspension 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 03/24/14 HBK Motion to Dismiss 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Telephone communications with counsel, L. Smalls, regarding behavior and Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to counsel regarding same Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Motion to Withdraw (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/24/14 CEM Preparation of same 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 27 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 03/25/14 HBK Permission to Evaluate 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 03/25/14 DD Submission of Motion 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from client regarding communication Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same Telephone communications with client regarding suspension Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey regarding Permission to Evaluate (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/25/14 CEM Review of Order 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding FBA Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Permission to Evaluate Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/26/14 CEM client regarding suspension 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding suspension Telephone communication with client regarding same Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding Consent to (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/27/14 CEM Evaluate 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 03/28/14 HBK suspensions 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 03/28/14 CEM regarding suspensions 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/07/14 CEM Dr. Levisohn regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 28 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Review of correspondence from client regarding behavior Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/08/14 CEM counsel 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/09/14 HBK behavior 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/09/14 CEM regarding behavior 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondences from Rate reduced to Laffey counsel, L. Smalls, regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/10/14 CEM IEE and behavior incidents 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of discipline referral forms Telephone communication with L. Levisohn regarding evaluation Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/11/14 CEM client 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of correspondence to School District regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/15/14 JTN behavioral issues 0.250 0.250 240.00 240.00 60.00 60.00 48.00 11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding payment for same Preparation of correspondences Rate reduced to Laffey to counsel, L. Smalls, regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/15/14 CEM behavior 1.375 1.375 275.00 250.00 378.13 343.75 275.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Research regarding behavior (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/20/14 CEM assessment and intervention 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Research regarding behavior (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/21/14 CEM assessment and intervention 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/23/14 HBK evaluation 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 29 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondences from L. Levisohn regarding evaluation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/23/14 CEM L. Levisohn regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding IEE Review of correspondence from D. Topolosky regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey L. Levisohn and D. Topolosky (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/24/14 CEM regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Telephone communication with Dr. Topolosky regarding psychoeducational testing Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Topolosky regarding same Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn and Dr. Topolosky regarding IEE Rate reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/28/14 CEM D. Dubose regarding IEE records 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 04/29/14 HBK and behavior incidents 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 30 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Review of correspondence from D. Topolosky and Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE and rate Preparation of correspondence to D. Topolosky and Dr. Levisohn regarding same Preparation of correspondence to D. Topolosky regarding IEE Authorization Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE and behavior incidents Review of correspondences from Dr. Levisohn regarding student information and rate Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 04/29/14 CEM Dr. Levisohn regarding same 1.125 1.125 275.00 250.00 309.38 281.25 225.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Preparation of file materials for USAO; Fee reduced by 05/01/14 DD Evaluator review 0.500 0.500 145.00 116.00 72.50 58.00 46.40 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Preparation of file materials and USAO; Fee reduced by 05/06/14 DD correspondence to Evaluators 1.000 1.000 145.00 116.00 145.00 116.00 92.80 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/06/14 CEM observation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding rate Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/07/14 HBK approval 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 31 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin regarding observation Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding rate approval Review of correspondence from D. Topolosky and L. Levisohn regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to D. Topolosky and L. Levisohn regarding same Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding School (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/07/14 CEM District contact 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/08/14 CEM observation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/12/14 CEM regarding IEE rate 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 05/15/14 DD client 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding cause of action, (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/15/14 CEM evaluations and behavior 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communications with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding testing and (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/23/14 CEM transportation 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communications with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding transportation to (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/27/14 CEM IEE 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/28/14 CEM client regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/29/14 HBK evaluation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 05/29/14 DCM evaluation issues 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 45.00 11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 32 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communications with client regarding transportation Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and Rate reduced to Laffey D.C. McAndrews regarding (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/29/14 CEM same 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Research regarding transportation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (13-14); Fee reduced by 05/30/14 CEM client regarding same 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from client Investigate transportation Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/02/14 CEM UPS regarding lost package 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.75 255.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation for, travel to and attendance at client meeting regarding transportation Telephone communications with A. McLaughlin regarding Hours reduced (travel); observation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced 06/03/14 CEM A. McLaughlin regarding same 1.375 0.875 275.00 255.00 378.13 223.13 178.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/09/14 CEM F. Abdul regarding IEE forms 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/10/14 CEM client regarding placement 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 06/11/14 HBK placement 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/11/14 CEM regarding placement 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/16/14 CEM A. McLaughlin 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Correspondence with client Rate reduced to 75% regarding Dr. Levisohn USAO; Fee reduced by 06/17/14 FA evaluation forms 0.375 0.375 145.00 116.00 54.38 43.50 34.80 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 33 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding UPS delivery Review of correspondences from client regarding ESY, observation and summer transportation Preparation of correspondences to client regarding same Review of correspondences from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondences to A. McLaughlin regarding same Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/17/14 CEM regarding IEE 1.375 1.375 275.00 255.00 378.13 350.63 280.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communications with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding IEE (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/18/14 CEM transportation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Arrange transportation Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with Taxi company regarding transportation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/19/14 CEM client 1.625 1.625 275.00 255.00 446.88 414.38 331.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE and observation Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (14-15); Fee reduced by 06/25/14 CEM observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Rates reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/01/14 CEM F. Abdul regarding observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 07/02/14 FA client 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rates reduced to Laffey F. Abdul regarding ESY (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/02/14 CEM schedule 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 07/03/14 FA client 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 34 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding ESY observation Correspondence with A. McLaughlin regarding same Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/03/14 CEM observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding placement and (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/08/14 CEM ESY 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding ESY observation Telephone communication with client Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/09/14 CEM client 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of correspondence from client Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/10/14 CEM client 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 07/11/14 HBK services 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from client regarding ESY Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding ESY observation Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/11/14 CEM regarding services 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 102.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey client regarding new contact (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/15/14 CEM information 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/16/14 CEM A. McLaughlin regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/17/14 CEM F. Abdul regarding UPS 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 07/18/14 FA Preparation of file materials 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from client regarding new contact information Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/21/14 CEM client regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 35 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 07/23/14 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEEs 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rates reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/24/14 CEM regarding IEEs 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 07/31/14 CEM client regarding placement 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/01/14 CEM regarding residency 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/05/14 CEM L. Levisohn regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding same Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding observation Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/06/14 CEM regarding enrollment 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 102.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/07/14 CEM A. McLaughlin regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/08/14 CEM regarding enrollment 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 08/26/14 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14) Review of IEE Report Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/26/14 CEM regarding IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 36 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Preparation of correspondences to client regarding enrollment and transportation Review of correspondence from client regarding same Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding same Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/27/14 CEM observation 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 153.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 08/28/14 HBK Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Review of correspondence from client Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint Telephone communication with client Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/28/14 CEM client 1.875 1.875 275.00 255.00 515.63 478.13 382.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (14-15); Fee reduced by 08/29/14 CEM client 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 102.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client regarding transportation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/02/14 CEM client regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin regarding same Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/04/14 CEM observation 0.875 0.875 275.00 255.00 240.63 223.13 178.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 37 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondences from A. McLaughlin regarding behavior and observation Research regarding observation policy Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Review of correspondences from client regarding IEP Meeting and transportation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/08/14 CEM client regarding IEP Meeting 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 204.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Telephone communication with USAO; Fee reduced by 09/09/14 FA client regarding Releases 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with client regarding Records Release Rate reduced to 75% Preparation of correspondence to USAO; Fee reduced by 09/10/14 FA client regarding same 0.375 0.375 145.00 116.00 54.38 43.50 34.80 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/16/14 CEM observation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Review of file materials/Intraoffice Rate reduced to Laffey communication with F. Abdul (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/19/14 CEM regarding Releases 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% Preparation of file materials USAO; Fee reduced by 09/22/14 FA regarding Release 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/24/14 CEM client regarding 30 Day Review 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/24/14 CEM client regarding 30 Day Review 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Telephone communication with DCPS Special Education Compliance Office regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey A. McLaughlin regarding (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/25/14 CEM observation 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 38 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 09/28/14 CEM regarding observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Fee reduced 20% (Pre- 10/01/14 HBK observation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from client Telephone communication with client Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/01/14 CEM regarding same 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 204.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/07/14 CEM L. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/08/14 CEM L. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Review of correspondence from (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/09/14 CEM L. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding IEE Rate reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/15/14 CEM F. Abdul regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/17/14 CEM F. Abdul regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Intraoffice communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/21/14 CEM E. Gilmore regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 10/27/14 FA Preparation of records 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 20% (Pre-11/6/14) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 39 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondences from D. Topolosky regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding same Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of correspondence to (14-15); Fee reduced by 10/27/14 CEM D. Topolosky regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Rate reduced to Laffey Telephone communication with (14-15); Fee reduced by 11/03/14 CEM client 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 85% 11/06/14 MC C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with M. Clarke regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 11/06/14 CEM communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Review of file materials regarding Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 11/14/14 CEM Complaint 3.125 3.125 275.00 255.00 859.38 796.88 796.88 (14-15) Telephone communication with client Preparation of Due Process Complaint Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 11/17/14 CEM Complaint 2.625 2.625 275.00 255.00 721.88 669.38 669.38 (14-15)
Preparation of Due Process Complaint Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Review of correspondence from client regarding IEP Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 11/18/14 CEM client regarding same 0.875 0.875 275.00 255.00 240.63 223.13 223.13 (14-15)
Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 11/24/14 CEM client regarding IEP 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from client regarding conference call Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 11/25/14 CEM client regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 11/25/14 CEM counsel 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey 11/26/14 CEM regarding McKinney-Vento 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 127.50 (14-15) Research regarding Mckinney- Rate reduced to Laffey 12/03/14 CEM Vento Act 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 40 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Preparation of Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 12/04/14 CEM Complaint 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Review and revise Due Process 12/05/14 JTN Complaint 0.375 0.375 240.00 240.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 - Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process 12/11/14 JCL Complaint 0.125 0.125 230.00 230.00 28.75 28.75 28.75 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due 12/11/14 HBK Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 12/11/14 CEM Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Preparation of Due Process Rate reduced to 85% 12/16/14 MC Complaint for filing 1.000 1.000 185.00 131.00 185.00 131.00 131.00 USAO Preparation of Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 12/16/14 CEM Complaint 1.375 1.375 275.00 255.00 378.13 350.63 350.63 (14-15) Review of file materials regarding Hearing Officer Rate reduced to Laffey 12/18/14 CEM assignment 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Blount and counsel regarding Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer and counsel regarding same Telephone communication with E. Castillo regarding RSM Hours reduced (RSM); Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 12/19/14 CEM E. Castillo regarding RSM 0.375 0.500 275.00 255.00 103.13 127.50 127.50 (14-15)
Review of initial Order and Notice of Prehearing Conference Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 12/22/14 CEM scheduling 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from E. Castillo regarding RSM Preparation of correspondence to E. Castillo regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and H.B. Hours reduced (RSM); Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 12/31/14 CEM regarding same 0.250 0.000 275.00 255.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 (14-15)
01/02/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 41 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding scheduling Telephone communication with client Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Blount regarding scheduling Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer Blount regarding same Review of correspondence from E. Castillo regarding same Review of DCPS Response Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey 01/02/15 CEM Process Hearing 1.125 1.125 275.00 255.00 309.38 286.88 286.88 (14-15) Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 01/05/15 JH regarding Due Process 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 01/05/15 MC client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy Rate reduced to Laffey 01/05/15 CEM regarding Prehearing Conference 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Review of correspondences from Hearing Officer and Notices Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation for Due Process 01/06/15 DCM Review of records 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding file Rate reduced to 85% 01/06/15 JH contents 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 42 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of Prehearing Conference Order Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding file Intraoffice communication with M. Clarke regarding file Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding records Review of correspondence from E. Castillo regarding RSM Preparation of correspondence to E. Castillo regarding same Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, Hearing Officer Blount and D.C. McAndrews regarding Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding residence Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 01/06/15 CEM client 1.250 1.125 275.00 255.00 343.75 286.88 286.88 (14-15)
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding 01/07/15 HBK Resolution Meeting 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM)
Preparation of correspondence to E. Castillo regarding RSM Review of correspondence from E. Castillo regarding same Preparation of correspondence to client Preparation for, travel to and attendance at RSM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding RSM Research regarding 01/07/15 CEM transportation 5.625 0.000 275.00 255.00 1,546.88 0.00 0.00 -
01/08/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 43 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondences from colleague regarding resources Preparation of correspondences to colleague regarding same Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding residence Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 01/08/15 CEM L. Levisohn regarding same 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 (14-15)
Review of records 01/12/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process 1.750 1.750 450.00 450.00 787.50 787.50 787.50 - Preparation for Prehearing Conference and Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 01/12/15 CEM Hearing 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 (14-15) Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 01/13/15 MC client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of file materials regarding school record and 01/13/15 JH Resolution Disposition form 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 44 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Research regarding housing Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding client communication Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding same Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding RSM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding Due Process Hearing Telephone communication with Lindamood Bell regarding evaluation Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer and counsel regarding Prehearing Conference Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from Hours reduced (RSM); L. Levisohn regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey 01/13/15 CEM Process Hearing 1.625 1.500 275.00 255.00 446.88 382.50 382.50 (14-15)
Review of multiple emails from prospective witnesses Preparation of multiple emails to prospective witnesses Preparation for and attendance at Prehearing Conference Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn Preparation of Motion for Continuance Preparation of Witness Lists Preparation of questions for Due 01/14/15 DCM Process 2.500 2.500 450.00 450.00 1,125.00 1,125.00 1,125.00 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 45 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communications with M. Clarke regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn regarding same Telephone communication with Lindamood Bell regarding evaluation Review of correspondence from counsel M. Washington, regarding RSM disposition Preparation of Motion Review of Prehearing Conference Order Hours reduced (RSM); Preparation of memorandum to Rate reduced to Laffey 01/14/15 CEM file regarding same 1.875 1.500 275.00 255.00 515.63 382.50 382.50 (14-15)
Preparation of Motion for Continuance Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn Preparation of correspondence to 01/15/15 DCM Dr. Levisohn 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Lindamood Bell testing Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 01/15/15 MC client 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Motions Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer regarding Motion for Continuance Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding same Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 01/15/15 CEM M. Clarke regarding evaluation 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 191.25 (14-15)
Preparation of correspondence to School District regarding IEP Review of correspondence from counsel regarding transportation Preparation of correspondence to 01/16/15 DCM counsel regarding same 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 46 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding same Telephone communications with client regarding transportation and evaluation Intraoffice communications with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing and behavior Telephone communication with counsel, M. Washington, regarding transportation Preparation of correspondences to counsel regarding same Telephone communication with Lindamood Bell regarding evaluation Preparation of correspondence to C. Sandoval regarding IEP Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 01/16/15 CEM counsel regarding transportation 2.375 2.375 275.00 255.00 653.13 605.63 605.63 (14-15)
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Lindamood Bell Telephone communications with client regarding transportation and housing Preparation of Motion to Correct Rate reduced to Laffey 01/19/15 CEM Prehearing Conference Order 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.75 318.75 (14-15)
Review of Hearing Officer's Order Preparation of Motion to Correct Order Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation of correspondence to 01/20/15 DCM counsel 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 47 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding resume Review of correspondences from A. McLaughlin regarding same and Due Process Hearing Review of correspondences from counsel, M. Washington, regarding continuance and Prehearing Conference Order Telephone communication with client regarding transportation Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 01/20/15 CEM same 1.125 1.125 275.00 255.00 309.38 286.88 286.88 (14-15)
Telephone communications with counsel, M. Washington and C. 01/21/15 DCM McAndrews 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer regarding Due Process Hearing Rate reduced to Laffey 01/21/15 CEM Review of file materials 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15) Review of correspondence from 01/22/15 DCM Hearing Officer 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 48 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communications with client regarding transportation and reading Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding residence Intraoffice communications with D.C. McAndrews regarding resumes and transportation Review of correspondences from counsel, M. Washington, regarding transportation and records Preparation of correspondences to counsel regarding same Review of correspondence from Lindamood Bell regarding evaluation Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Due Process Hearing Research regarding transportation Preparation of correspondence to D. Douglas regarding Due Process Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding same Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding same Preparation of correspondence to client regarding reading Hours reduced (travel); evaluation Rate reduced to Laffey Preparation of Intake for (13-14); Fee reduced 01/22/15 CEM Reading Evaluation 2.750 2.500 275.00 255.00 756.25 637.50 637.50 20% (Pre-11/6/14)
Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Motion Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer regarding same and scheduling Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy and D. Douglas regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 01/23/15 CEM D. Douglas regarding same 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 01/26/15 CEM witnesses 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Review of records 01/27/15 DCM Preparation for hearing 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 49 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 01/27/15 AS client regarding same 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO
Review of Order granting continuance Review of Prehearing Conference Order Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding witnesses Preparation of memorandum to D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding same Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding same Preparation of correspondence to D. Douglas regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 01/27/15 CEM A. Sauer regarding same 2.000 2.000 275.00 255.00 550.00 510.00 510.00 (14-15) Intraoffice communication regarding Due Process Hearing 01/28/15 HBK and residence 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Intraoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith, D.C. McAndrews and C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing Rate reduced to 75% 01/28/15 AS and residence 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication a A. Sauer regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding testimony Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith, D.C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding Due Process Hearing Rate reduced to Laffey 01/28/15 CEM and residence 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 50 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communications with client regarding placement Telephone communication with Fairfax County Coordinated Services Planning regarding Rate reduced to 75% 01/29/15 AS enrollment 0.625 0.625 155.00 116.00 96.88 72.50 72.50 USAO
Telephone communications with client regarding contact information and placement Telephone communication with Fairfax County Coordinated Services Planning regarding enrollment Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding supports Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Motions Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 01/29/15 CEM client regarding transportation 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.75 318.75 (14-15) Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding client Rate reduced to Laffey 02/03/15 CEM communication 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/04/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding communication with client, Rate reduced to Laffey 02/04/15 CEM transportation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15) Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/05/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of phone message Rate reduced to Laffey 02/05/15 CEM regarding transportation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/06/15 AS client regarding transportation 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 51 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communications with A. Sauer regarding transportation Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding IEP Meeting Intraoffice communications with D.C. McAndrews regarding same and conference call Hours reduced (IEP); Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 02/06/15 CEM client regarding IEP Meeting 0.750 0.130 275.00 255.00 206.25 33.15 33.15 (14-15)
Review of file materials Hours reduced (RSM); regarding Invitation to IEP and Rate reduced to 85% 02/06/15 JH Resolution Meeting 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0.00 USAO
02/07/15 DCM Review of records 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding records and meeting Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP meeting Research regarding IEPs Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Hours reduced (IEP); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 02/07/15 CEM counsel 1.250 0.000 275.00 255.00 343.75 0.00 0.00 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 02/08/15 CEM records 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/09/15 AS client 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Meeting and residence Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting Review of correspondence from client Review of correspondence from counsel Hours reduced (IEP); Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 02/09/15 CEM counsel 1.500 0.000 275.00 255.00 412.50 0.00 0.00 (14-15)
Preparation for resolution session Telephone communication with client Review of records Review of correspondence from 02/09/15 DCM counsel, M. Washington 0.750 0.000 450.00 450.00 337.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 52 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding 02/10/15 HBK procedure 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of correspondences from counsel, M. Washington Review of correspondence from client Preparation of correspondence to client Preparation of correspondence to 02/10/15 DCM counsel 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 - Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/10/15 AS client regarding status 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 02/10/15 JH regarding Custody Order 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Intraoffice communications with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Telephone communication with client regarding meetings Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to Laffey 02/10/15 CEM regarding procedure 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation of correspondence to counsel 02/11/15 DCM Correspondence with client 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hours reduced (RSM); same, IEP and Resolution Rate reduced to Laffey 02/11/15 CEM Meeting 0.375 0.125 275.00 255.00 103.13 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Preparation for, travel to and attendance at Resolution Meeting 02/12/15 DCM Review of records 10.000 0.000 450.00 450.00 4,500.00 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM) Correspondence with client Review of records Preparation of witness sheets for 02/13/15 DCM deposition 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 02/13/15 CEM Resolution Meeting 0.125 0.000 275.00 255.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 53 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hours reduced (IEP); reading, IEP Meeting and Due Rate reduced to Laffey 02/14/15 CEM Process Hearing 1.250 0.500 275.00 255.00 343.75 127.50 127.50 (14-15) Review of correspondence from colleague regarding homeless services Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hours reduced (non- 02/16/15 CEM same 0.125 0.000 275.00 255.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 compensable) Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with 02/18/15 DCM N. Gregerson 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding OSSE contacts Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding reading intervention Review of correspondence from colleague regarding McKinney- Vento Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 02/18/15 CEM colleague regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15)
Preparation of correspondence to L. Levisohn Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin Telephone communications with client Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington Review of correspondence from counsel Telephone communication with 02/19/15 DCM N. Gregorson 2.250 2.250 450.00 450.00 1,012.50 1,012.50 1,012.50 -
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey 02/19/15 CEM Process Hearing 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from N. Gregerson Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregerson Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn Preparation of correspondence to 02/20/15 DCM L. Levisohn 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 54 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Rate reduced to 85% 02/20/15 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding OSSE Rate reduced to Laffey 02/20/15 CEM Review of DCPS report on IEE 0.875 0.875 275.00 255.00 240.63 223.13 223.13 (14-15) Preparation for Due Process 02/21/15 DCM Hearing 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -
Preparation for Due Process Review of records Preparation of Exhibits Preparation of witness sheets Preparation of correspondence to 02/22/15 DCM Experts 8.250 8.250 450.00 450.00 3,712.50 3,712.50 3,712.50 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey 02/22/15 CEM Process Hearing 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 (14-15)
Telephone communication with Dr. L. Levisohn 02/23/15 DCM Preparation of witness sheets 1.375 1.375 450.00 450.00 618.75 618.75 618.75 -
Telephone communication with L. Levisohn regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to A. Sauer regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from C. Sandoval regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced (IEP); D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 02/23/15 CEM same 1.125 0.875 275.00 255.00 309.38 223.13 223.13 (14-15)
Five-Day Notice Correspondence with D. Douglas Correspondence with M. Washington Review of correspondence from Dr. A. McLaughlin Preparation of correspondence to Dr. A. McLaughlin Telephone communication with Dr. N. Gregerson regarding 02/24/15 DCM possible testimony 3.125 3.125 450.00 450.00 1,406.25 1,406.25 1,406.25 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 55 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client Hearing travel arrangements Rate reduced to 75% 02/24/15 AS Research regarding same 1.125 1.125 155.00 116.00 174.38 130.50 130.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication regarding Due Process Exhibits Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 02/24/15 JH client 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 02/24/15 CEM Hearing 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Preparation of Due Process letter Preparation of Exhibits Preparation of experts Telephone communication with L. Levisohn Telephone communications with D. Douglas Telephone communication with 02/25/15 DCM A. McLaughlin 3.875 3.875 450.00 450.00 1,743.75 1,743.75 1,743.75 -
Initial Preparation of Exhibits Rate reduced to 85% 02/25/15 JH Preparation of Exhibits 1.250 1.250 185.00 131.00 231.25 163.75 163.75 USAO
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/26/15 AS client regarding Hearing 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding transportation, Due Process Hearing, compensatory education and S/L Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding transportation Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP and residence Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding Due Process Hearing Hours reduced (IEP); Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to Laffey 02/26/15 CEM A. McLaughlin regarding same 0.875 0.500 275.00 255.00 240.63 127.50 127.50 (14-15) Review of School District 02/27/15 DCM Motion to Dismiss 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Review of Five-Day Notice Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, K. Conaboy and Evaluators regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey 02/27/15 CEM Process Hearing and Exhibits 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 127.50 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 56 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding exhibits Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer and D.C. McAndrews regarding residence and Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/01/15 CEM Motion 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 127.50 (14-15) Preparation of Reply to Motion 03/02/15 DCM to Dismiss 0.875 0.875 450.00 450.00 393.75 393.75 393.75 - Finalization of Due Process Rate reduced to 85% 03/02/15 JH Exhibit Books 1.000 1.000 185.00 131.00 185.00 131.00 131.00 USAO
Review of Motion to Dismiss Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding housing for Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing Review of file materials regarding exhibits Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, E. Gilmore regarding Response to Motion to Rate reduced to Laffey 03/02/15 CEM Dismiss 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.75 318.75 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from 03/03/15 DCM counsel, M. Washington 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Rate reduced to 85% 03/03/15 JH Correspondence with counsel 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Motion and Disclosures Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding services and transportation Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, E. Gilmore and J. Hardy regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/03/15 CEM Disclosures 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 191.25 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 57 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding School District records receipt Telephone communication with L. Levisohn Research regarding Due Process Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer Review of correspondence from 03/04/15 DCM Hearing Officer 2.250 2.250 450.00 450.00 1,012.50 1,012.50 1,012.50 -
Telephone communication with OSSE Transportation regarding location/address Telephone communication with client regarding housing, Rate reduced to 75% 03/04/15 AS attendance and transportation 0.750 0.750 155.00 116.00 116.25 87.00 87.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding objections, Disclosures and Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding Disclosures, telephone call with OSSE and services Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Research regarding services Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/04/15 CEM Disclosures 1.375 1.375 275.00 255.00 378.13 350.63 350.63 (14-15)
Review of correspondences from A. Washington Preparation of correspondences to A. Washington Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation of correspondence to counsel Review of School District records 03/05/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process 1.375 1.375 450.00 450.00 618.75 618.75 618.75 - Telephone communication with client regarding assistance and Rate reduced to 75% 03/05/15 AS Hearing 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 58 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington and D.C. McAndrews, regarding Disclosures Review of correspondence from D.C. McAndrews and A. McLaughlin regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer and D.C. McAndrews regarding services Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/05/15 CEM Exhibits 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 191.25 (14-15)
Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin Preparation of correspondence to 03/06/15 DCM Hearing Officer 1.500 1.500 450.00 450.00 675.00 675.00 675.00 - Rate reduced to 85% 03/06/15 JH Update case status 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/06/15 CEM objections to disclosures 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Preparation for Due Process Hearing Communications with clients Preparation of Opening Preparation of witness sheets Review of records Preparation for cross- examination Research legal issues underlying 03/08/15 DCM claims for relief 8.500 8.500 450.00 450.00 3,825.00 3,825.00 3,825.00 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Exhibits Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 85% 03/08/15 JH D. Douglas 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 USAO
Telephone communications with client regarding Due Process Hearing and services Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Review of correspondence from D.C. McAndrews, L. Levisohn and D. Douglas regarding Due Rate reduced to Laffey 03/08/15 CEM Process Hearing 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 59 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Preparation for, travel to and attendance at Due Process Hearing Preparation for second day of 03/09/15 DCM Hearing 9.500 9.500 450.00 450.00 4,275.00 4,275.00 4,275.00 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding resolution and Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 03/09/15 CEM Complaint 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 127.50 (14-15) Preparation for second day of 03/10/15 DCM hearing 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 - Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 03/10/15 JH client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Telephone communication with client regarding new housing and Rate reduced to 75% 03/11/15 AS transportation 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of correspondence from M. Acosta regarding telephone Rate reduced to Laffey 03/11/15 CEM call with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Preparation for and attendance at Due Process Hearing 03/12/15 DCM Post-hearing research 13.125 13.125 450.00 450.00 5,906.25 5,906.25 5,906.25 - Research regarding Due Process 03/16/15 JCL issues 0.375 0.375 230.00 230.00 86.25 86.25 86.25 -
Research regarding Post-Hearing submission Preparation of same Review of School District cases 03/16/15 DCM and statements regarding cases 2.250 2.250 450.00 450.00 1,012.50 1,012.50 1,012.50 - Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 03/16/15 JH client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Preparation of materials for Post- Rate reduced to 85% 03/16/15 EG Hearing submission 2.625 2.625 185.00 131.00 485.63 343.88 343.88 USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding case Rate reduced to Laffey 03/16/15 CEM law support 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from OSSE Preparation of correspondence to OSSE Preparation of correspondence to 03/17/15 DCM counsel, M. Washington 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 - Review of correspondence from client regarding Hearing Rate reduced to 75% 03/17/15 AS transcript 0.750 0.750 155.00 116.00 116.25 87.00 87.00 USAO Review of correspondence from ODR Preparation of correspondence to ODR Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 85% 03/17/15 JH client 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 60 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding transcript Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/17/15 CEM same and transportation 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Preparation of Hearing Rate reduced to 75% 03/18/15 AS Transcript Request 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding transcript Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/18/15 CEM transcript 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Review of correspondence from client Preparation of correspondence to 03/22/15 DCM client 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 03/24/15 CEM D.C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 03/25/15 CEM A. Sauer regarding transcript 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Review of correspondence from ODR regarding Hearing Officer Decision Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 03/28/15 CEM same 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15)
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Hearing Officer Decision Preparation of appeal 03/30/15 DCM Preparation of fee materials 1.750 1.750 450.00 450.00 787.50 787.50 787.50 -
Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 03/30/15 JH regarding Due Process transcript 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of Hearing Officer Decision Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Review of correspondences from S. Cogdell regarding transcript and Hearing Officer Decision Preparation of correspondences Rate reduced to Laffey 03/30/15 CEM to S. Cogdell regarding same 1.625 1.625 275.00 255.00 446.88 414.38 414.38 (14-15)
Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 03/31/15 JH regarding IEP Amendment Form 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
04/01/15 HBK Review Due Process decision 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 61 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client 04/01/15 DCM Preparation of Appeal materials 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Decision Review of same Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding conference 04/02/15 MEG call 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hearing Officer Decision Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding intraoffice meeting Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced (IEP); A. Sauer regarding IEP Rate reduced to Laffey 04/02/15 CEM Amendment 0.375 0.250 275.00 255.00 103.13 63.75 63.75 (14-15) Review IEP/ESY request Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 04/03/15 DCM response 0.250 0.000 450.00 450.00 112.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced (IEP); D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 04/03/15 CEM Amendment 0.250 0.000 275.00 255.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 (14-15) Telephone communication with 04/06/15 DCM client 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced (IEP); D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Rate reduced to Laffey 04/06/15 CEM Amendment 0.125 0.000 275.00 255.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 (14-15) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Due 04/07/15 HBK Process Decision 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Review of Decision Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding 04/07/15 MEG same 0.750 0.750 430.00 430.00 322.50 322.50 322.50 -
04/07/15 DCM Preparation of appeal materials 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 04/07/15 JH regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, H.B. Konkler- Goldsmith and M. Gehring Rate reduced to Laffey 04/07/15 CEM regarding appeal 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15)
Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to Laffey 04/13/15 CEM S. Cogdell regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 62 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of file regarding Rate reduced to 75% 04/21/15 AS transcript 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding case Rate reduced to Laffey 04/22/15 CEM law 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Research regarding recent cases 04/22/15 DCM regarding specificity in IEP 0.125 0.000 450.00 450.00 56.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Rate reduced to 85% 04/25/15 JH Deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell, K. Conaboy and D.C. McAndrews Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hearing Officer Decision Rate reduced to Laffey 04/28/15 CEM implementation 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Review of file, Note 05/04/15 MEG Review of documents 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 -
05/05/15 DCM Preparation of appeal papers 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/05/15 AS client regarding services 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 05/05/15 JH regarding emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding negotiations, compensatory education and fees Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding communication with client and Rate reduced to Laffey 05/05/15 CEM compensatory education 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 (14-15) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding compensatory education 05/06/15 DCM programs 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, J. Hardy, and D.C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to 75% 05/06/15 AS billing 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education and costs Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer, E. Gilmore and D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education and Rate reduced to Laffey 05/06/15 CEM reimbursement 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 63 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Rate reduced to 75% 05/07/15 AS services 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 05/07/15 CEM compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and H.B. Rate reduced to 75% 05/08/15 AS Konkler-Goldsmith 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and A. Sauer regarding Due Process Rate reduced to Laffey 05/08/15 CEM Hearing 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15) Preparation of Complaint Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 05/11/15 MEG same 10.250 10.250 430.00 430.00 4,407.50 4,407.50 4,407.50 - Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/11/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Preparation of N.T. binders Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to 75% 05/11/15 EB counsel 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding program and compensatory education Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 05/11/15 CEM M. Gehring regarding Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15) Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell regarding Rate reduced to Laffey 05/14/15 CEM implementation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Telephone communication with client regarding compensatory Rate reduced to Laffey 05/17/15 CEM education 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15)
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding contact with client Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Telephone communication with client regarding compensatory Rate reduced to Laffey 05/18/15 CEM education 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/19/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A.Sauer regarding compensatory Rate reduced to Laffey 05/19/15 CEM education and programming 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Complaint 05/20/15 MEG Update case status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 64 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Preparation of Federal Court 05/20/15 DCM Complaint 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -
Intraoffice communication with E. Bissell regarding Complaint Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. 05/21/15 MEG McAndrews regarding status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding contacts for School District implementation Preparation of Federal Court 05/21/15 DCM Complaint 1.000 1.000 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 75% 05/21/15 AS client 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 USAO Rate reduced to 75% 05/21/15 EB Review and revise Complaint 0.750 0.750 155.00 116.00 116.25 87.00 87.00 USAO Rate reduced to 85% 05/21/15 JH Review of email 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Preparation of correspondences to S. Cogdell regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to client regarding contact Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Complaint, Hearing Officer Decision implementation and Rate reduced to Laffey 05/21/15 CEM appeal 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, D.C. Rate reduced to 75% 05/22/15 AS McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 05/23/15 JH regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Update case status Intraoffice communication with 05/27/15 MEG C. McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 05/27/15 CEM M. Gehring regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 (14-15) Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy and C. McAndrews regarding status 05/28/15 MEG Update case status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -
05/28/15 DCM Preparation of Complaint 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to Laffey 05/28/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding appeal 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 (14-15)
05/29/15 MEG Review and revise Complaint 0.625 0.625 430.00 430.00 268.75 268.75 268.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 65 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A 06/01/15 DCM Preparation of Complaint 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 - Preparation of CV for D.C. Rate reduced to 75% 06/02/15 EB McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Preparation of fee materials Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding 06/03/15 CEM communication with client 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. 06/03/15 MEG McAndrews regarding status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 - Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell regarding compensatory education Review of file materials regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 06/05/15 CEM expert 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - Telephone communication with 06/05/15 DCM counsel, V. Porter 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding Hearing Officer Decision implementation Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 06/08/15 CEM communication with client 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Intraoffice communication with 06/09/15 MEG J. Hardy regarding filing 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Preparation of Complaint Review of file materials/Intraoffice 06/09/15 DCM communication regarding same 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, D.C. Rate reduced to 75% 06/09/15 AS McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Preparation of Complaint documents Rate reduced to 85% 06/09/15 JH Finalize Complaint 1.000 1.000 185.00 131.00 185.00 131.00 131.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication regarding Federal Complaint Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Summons and Judge Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 06/10/15 CEM regarding Complaint 0.625 0.625 275.00 275.00 171.88 171.88 171.88 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 66 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with 06/10/15 MEG J. Hardy regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Preparation of materials to 06/10/15 DCM accompany Complaint 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, D.C. Rate reduced to 75% 06/10/15 AS McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communication with R. Dawson, District Court Federal District Court Finalize Notice Preparation of Certificate of Service Rate reduced to 85% 06/10/15 JH Intraoffice communication 0.500 0.500 185.00 131.00 92.50 65.50 65.50 USAO Review of correspondence from J. Michney regarding 06/12/15 CEM compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding negotiations and 06/14/15 CEM Complaint 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -
Intraoffice communication with 06/15/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with 06/15/15 MEG J. Hardy regarding service 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of file materials regarding Complaint Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 85% 06/15/15 JH counsel, L. George 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 USAO
Review of Complaint Preparation of correspondence to J. Michney regarding 06/16/15 CEM compensatory education 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 06/18/15 CEM resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Telephone communications with counsel, L. George Preparation of correspondence to 06/18/15 DCM counsel, A. Crawford 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 - Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 06/18/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Research regarding 06/19/15 DCM compensatory education 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 06/20/15 CEM resolution 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 67 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding 06/30/15 CEM compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 06/30/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 07/01/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with 07/02/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding transcript 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - 07/02/15 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of correspondence from A. Crawford regarding reimbursement Intraoffice communication with 07/06/15 CEM E. Gilmore regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 07/06/15 DCM implementation issues 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Preparation of correspondence to A. Crawford regarding reimbursement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 07/07/15 CEM same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 07/08/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Crawford, regarding IEE reimbursement and global 07/15/15 DCM settlement 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 68 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from A. Crawford regarding reimbursement Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding invoice Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding service Review of correspondence from A. Crawford, D.C. McAndrews, and E. Gilmore regarding reimbursement Review of correspondence from D.C. McAndrews and A. Crawford regarding reimbursesment Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington regarding settlement Review of correspondence from D.C. McAndrews regarding 07/16/15 CEM invoice 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 - Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Crawford Preparation of correspondence to 07/16/15 DCM counsel 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding service Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of services Rate reduced to 85% 07/16/15 JH documents 1.375 1.375 185.00 131.00 254.38 180.13 180.13 USAO Review of correspondence from counsel, L. George, regarding service Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 07/27/15 CEM same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of correspondence from counsel Review of email regarding 07/27/15 MEG service 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Review of correspondence from counsel, L. George regarding 07/29/15 DCM service 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 07/30/15 CEM service 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of memorandum 08/03/15 CEM regarding service of process 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 69 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding service of process Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding call with 08/05/15 CEM client 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Gease Research regarding service of 08/05/15 DCM process 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 08/05/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 08/06/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding 08/07/15 CEM communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 08/07/15 DCM service and settlement 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Hearing Officer Decision Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy, D.C. McAndrews and M. Gehring regarding service of 08/10/15 CEM process 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding 08/10/15 HBK Hearing Officer Decision 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding service 08/10/15 MEG Research regarding same 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 - Research Preparation of documents for 08/10/15 DCM personal services 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, J. Hardy and M. Rate reduced to 75% 08/10/15 AS Gehring 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding service Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 85% 08/10/15 JH client 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 70 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding service of process Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Review of correspondence to 08/11/15 CEM process server 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -
Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy and D.C. McAndrews 08/11/15 MEG regarding service 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 08/11/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials regarding service Rate reduced to 85% 08/11/15 JH Preparation of email 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding 08/18/15 CEM reimbursement 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with 08/20/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding service 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status 08/20/15 MEG Research 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 08/20/15 DCM service of process 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 08/23/15 JH regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 08/24/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Review of file materials regarding service of process Intraoffice communication with 08/25/15 CEM A. Sauer regarding service 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -
Preparation of correspondence to Office of Attorney General Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 08/25/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding negotiation Intraoffice communication with 08/28/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding service 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement, service of Complaint 08/28/15 DCM and implementation 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 71 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of file materials regarding emails and Rate reduced to 85% 08/28/15 JH Notification of Service 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO
Review of correspondences from J. Michney regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to 08/31/15 CEM J. Michney regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Rate reduced to 85% 08/31/15 JH Review of file materials 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 08/31/15 AS C. McAndrews, J. Hardy 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding proof of 09/02/15 CEM service 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Telephone communication with 09/03/15 CEM counsel 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Review of file materials regarding Affidavits Rate reduced to 85% 09/03/15 JH Finalize same 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO
Review of correspondence from 09/04/15 CEM Court regarding Answer 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. 09/04/15 MEG McAndrews regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Review of correspondence from 09/04/15 DCM Clerk's Office 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 09/04/15 JH regarding service 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Preparation of correspondences to counsel Review of correspondences from counsel 09/11/15 MEG Review of Complaint 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 -
Intraoffice communication with 09/14/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding counsel 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding counseling Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Complaint and communication with School District Intraoffice communication with 09/15/15 CEM J. Hardy regarding counsel 0.625 0.625 275.00 275.00 171.88 171.88 171.88 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Preparation of correspondence to counsel Amended Complaint Telephone communication with 09/15/15 MEG counsel 0.750 0.750 430.00 430.00 322.50 322.50 322.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 72 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 09/15/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Amended Complaint Rate reduced to 85% 09/15/15 JH Finalize same 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 USAO
Review of correspondence from counsel Preparation of correspondence to counsel Intraoffice communication with 09/16/15 MEG J. Hardy regarding Complaint 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 -
Review of file materials regarding Amended Complaint and Entry of Appearance Finalize same Preparation of Certificate of Rate reduced to 85% 09/16/15 JH Service 0.500 0.500 185.00 131.00 92.50 65.50 65.50 USAO Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding counseling 09/17/15 CEM and LRE 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Intraoffice communication with 09/18/15 CEM M. Gehring regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with 09/18/15 MEG C. McAndrews regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice 09/24/15 HBK communication regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - 09/24/15 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication 09/24/15 MJC regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication Rate reduced to 75% 09/24/15 AB regarding status 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Research regarding statute of limitations Intraoffice communication 09/30/15 CEM regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Research regarding statute of limitations and compensatory education Preparation of materials 09/30/15 DCM regarding same 1.250 1.250 450.00 450.00 562.50 562.50 562.50 -
Research regarding resolution Telephone communication with A. Finkhousen regarding case law and resolution Preparation of correspondence to 10/01/15 CEM A. Finkhousen regarding same 0.875 0.875 275.00 275.00 240.63 240.63 240.63 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 73 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Review of C. McAndrews email 10/01/15 MEG to A. Finkhousen 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Answer and resolution Review of correspondence from counsel Preparation of correspondence to 10/02/15 CEM counsel 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Review of email from Court Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Answer Review of documents for call with Court Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding conference call Telephone communication with counsel Conference call with Court Review of correspondence from counsel Preparation of correspondence to 10/02/15 MEG counsel 1.625 1.625 430.00 430.00 698.75 698.75 698.75 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement issues 10/02/15 DCM Review Answer of Defendant 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Preparation of email to Chambers Review of emails regarding Rate reduced to 85% 10/02/15 JH conference call 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO 10/05/15 MEG Review of Court Order 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 10/05/15 JH regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Amended 10/09/15 CEM Answer 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of correspondences from counsel Preparation of correspondences to counsel Review of Answer 10/09/15 MEG Update case status 0.875 0.875 430.00 430.00 376.25 376.25 376.25 -
Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 10/11/15 JH regarding Order and deadlines 0.625 0.625 185.00 131.00 115.63 81.88 81.88 USAO
Intraoffice communication with 10/15/15 CEM M. Gehring regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 74 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with counsel, A. Finkhousen, 10/16/15 CEM regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Review of Court Notice 10/20/15 MEG Review of Amended Complaint 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Review of file materials regarding Motion for Leave to File Answer to Amended Rate reduced to 85% 10/20/15 JH Complaint 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Amended 10/21/15 CEM Answer 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Review of Defendant's Motion to 10/21/15 DCM File Amended Pleadings 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Preparation of correspondence to DCPS regarding Compliance Case Manager Preparation of correspondence to A. Anokye regarding conference call Review of correspondence from 10/22/15 CEM A. Anokye regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice 10/22/15 DCM communication regarding status 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith, A. Sauer regarding negotiations Telephone communication with 10/23/15 CEM A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and A. Sauer 10/23/15 HBK regarding negotiations 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and H.B. Rate reduced to 75% 10/23/15 AS Konkler-Goldsmith 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Preparation of correspondence to 10/24/15 CEM A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding conference 10/26/15 CEM call 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Research regarding statute of 10/26/15 DCM limitations 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -
Preparation of correspondence to A. Anokye regarding conference 10/27/15 CEM call 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 75 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding meeting Telephone communication with 11/02/15 CEM A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/02/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communication with 11/03/15 CEM A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/03/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communication with A. Anokye regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with 11/04/15 CEM A. Sauer regarding behavior 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/04/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communication with counsel, M. Washington, regarding resolution Preparation of correspondence to 11/05/15 CEM counsel regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/05/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/06/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding 11/10/15 CEM communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/10/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 11/13/15 DCM implementation issues 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/13/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 76 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding negotiations Intraoffice communication with 11/13/15 CEM A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 0.500 0.250 275.00 275.00 137.50 68.75 68.75 Hours reduced (IEP) Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 11/16/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding behavior meeting Preparation of correspondence to Hours reduced (non- 11/16/15 CEM client regarding same 0.375 0.000 275.00 275.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 compensable) Review of behavior reports 11/17/15 DCM Preparation for meeting 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to 75% 11/17/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding behavior meeting Review of correspondences from client regarding discipline and meeting Review of file materials regarding behavior Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding meeting Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same Travel to and attendance at MDT Hours reduced (non- 11/17/15 CEM Meeting 3.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 962.50 0.00 0.00 compensable) 11/18/15 MEG Review of Court Order 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -
Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 11/18/15 JH regarding Administrative Record 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 11/19/15 DCM implementation issues 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Meeting Review of correspondence from colleague regarding transition Preparation of correspondence to 11/19/15 CEM colleague regarding same 0.375 0.000 275.00 275.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
Review of correspondence from colleague regarding LRE Preparation of correspondence to 11/23/15 CEM colleague regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 77 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 11/24/15 CEM regarding appeal 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding case 11/24/15 HBK status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 11/30/15 CEM appeal 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
12/01/15 CEM Review of Amended Answer 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 12/02/15 CEM negotiations 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 12/14/15 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials regarding Wechsler testing Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with 12/14/15 CEM A. Sauer regarding IEE 0.375 0.125 275.00 275.00 103.13 34.38 34.38 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 12/15/15 CEM compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 12/15/15 DCM settlement 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding client communication Preparation of correspondence to A. Allen-King regarding 12/16/15 CEM compensatory education 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 12/16/15 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communication with A. King regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Research regarding reading 12/17/15 CEM instruction 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to 12/17/15 DCM client 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 78 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 12/18/15 CEM regarding negotiations 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Telephone communications with counsel Intraoffice communication with 12/18/15 MEG J. Hardy regarding status 0.625 0.625 430.00 430.00 268.75 268.75 268.75 -
Review of file materials Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status 12/21/15 MEG Preparation of records 1.375 1.375 430.00 430.00 591.25 591.25 591.25 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 12/26/15 JH regarding deadline 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Telephone communication with A. Allen-King regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to 12/28/15 CEM A. Allen-King regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Preparation of Motion for Judgment Review of transcripts 01/03/16 MEG Review of Exhibits 6.875 6.875 430.00 430.00 2,956.25 2,956.25 2,956.25 -
Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding brief 01/04/16 CEM Review of Motion for Extension 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding status Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding same and Motion Correspondence with counsel, A. Finkhousen Preparation of Extension Motion papers Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication with 01/04/16 MEG J. Hardy regarding filing 8.625 8.625 430.00 430.00 3,708.75 3,708.75 3,708.75 - Preparation of Motion on 01/04/16 DCM Administrative Record 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Motion for Extension Preparation of Certificate of Service Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 85% 01/04/16 JH Judge Huvelle 0.625 0.625 185.00 131.00 115.63 81.88 81.88 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 79 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of Court Order Preparation of Motion for 01/05/16 MEG Judgment 6.375 6.375 430.00 430.00 2,741.25 2,741.25 2,741.25 - Telephone communication with counsel, A. Allen-King, regarding resolution Review of file materials 01/06/16 CEM regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Preparation of Motion for 01/06/16 MEG Judgment 7.750 7.750 430.00 430.00 3,332.50 3,332.50 3,332.50 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 01/06/16 JH regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Preparation of correspondence to 01/07/16 CEM counsel 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - 01/07/16 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Review of correspondence from 01/08/16 DCM client 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding reimbursement Preparation of correspondences to A. McLaughlin regarding same Intraoffice communication with E. Gilmore regarding reimbursement Telephone communication with A. Anokye regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to A. Anokye regarding same Telephone communication with client regarding settlement and IEP Meeting Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Gehring and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding settlement Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to 01/13/16 CEM counsel regarding same 1.125 1.125 275.00 275.00 309.38 309.38 309.38 - Preparation of Motion for 01/13/16 MEG Judgment 2.125 2.125 430.00 430.00 913.75 913.75 913.75 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 01/13/16 DCM settlement and status 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 80 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 01/13/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Allen-King, regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to 01/14/16 CEM counsel regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Preparation of Motion for Judgment 01/14/16 MEG Review of email to A. Allarking 6.125 6.125 430.00 430.00 2,633.75 2,633.75 2,633.75 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding implementation and 01/14/16 DCM compensatory education 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Review of correspondence from client regarding IEP Review of correspondence from A. Allen-King regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and M. 01/15/16 CEM Gehring regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -
Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. 01/15/16 MEG McAndrews regarding status 2.250 2.250 430.00 430.00 967.50 967.50 967.50 - Rate reduced to 85% 01/15/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Allen-King Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 01/16/16 DCM settlement 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -
Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, H.B. Konkler- Goldsmith, C. McAndrews and 01/17/16 MEG M. Connolly regarding Brief 6.250 6.250 430.00 430.00 2,687.50 2,687.50 2,687.50 - Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring and D.C. McAndrews regarding 01/18/16 CEM Memorandum of Law 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 01/18/16 MEG Brief 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Review and revise Brief in Support of Motion for Summary 01/18/16 MJC Judgment 1.500 1.500 430.00 430.00 645.00 645.00 645.00 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 81 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Preparation of Memorandum for 01/18/16 DCM District Court 1.000 1.000 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 - Rate reduced to 85% 01/18/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with 01/19/16 CEM M. Gehring regarding case law 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Additional research Review and revise Motion for 01/19/16 MEG Judgment 6.750 6.750 430.00 430.00 2,902.50 2,902.50 2,902.50 - Preparation of Memorandum of 01/19/16 DCM Law 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -
01/20/16 CEM Review and revise Memorandum 1.000 1.000 275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00 - Preparation of Motion for 01/20/16 MEG Judgment 7.000 7.000 430.00 430.00 3,010.00 3,010.00 3,010.00 - 01/21/16 CEM Review and revise Brief 1.375 1.375 275.00 275.00 378.13 378.13 378.13 -
Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Brief Intraoffice communication with 01/21/16 MEG A. Butler regarding tables 5.750 5.750 430.00 430.00 2,472.50 2,472.50 2,472.50 -
01/21/16 DCM Preparation of memorandum 1.375 1.375 450.00 450.00 618.75 618.75 618.75 - Rate reduced to 75% 01/21/16 AB Preparation of exhibits 1.000 1.000 155.00 116.00 155.00 116.00 116.00 USAO
Preparation of Motion papers File same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 01/22/16 MEG Motion papers 5.750 5.750 430.00 430.00 2,472.50 2,472.50 2,472.50 - Preparation of Memorandum of 01/22/16 DCM Law 1.500 1.500 450.00 450.00 675.00 675.00 675.00 -
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Motion for Summary Judgment Preparation of correspondence to Judge Huvelle Preparation of Certificate of Service Finalize Motion Rate reduced to 85% 01/22/16 JH Review of Exhibits 1.125 1.125 185.00 131.00 208.13 147.38 147.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 01/25/16 CEM appeal 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 01/27/16 CEM regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 82 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding 01/27/16 HBK settlement 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Rate reduced to 75% 01/27/16 AS regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 01/28/16 HBK settlement issues 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Intraoffice communication regarding Case Status - Motion 01/28/16 MJC filed, awaiting response 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 01/28/16 DCM settlement issues 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Rate reduced to 85% 01/28/16 JH settlement issues 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication Rate reduced to 75% 01/29/16 AB regarding Motion and Response 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Rate reduced to 85% 01/29/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of file materials regarding evaluations and IEP Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 01/29/16 CEM same and IEP Meeting 3.875 0.000 275.00 275.00 1,065.63 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. 01/29/16 MEG McAndrews regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Review of file materials regarding IEP Meeting Telephone communication with 01/31/16 CEM client regarding same 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/01/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communication with client Preparation of notes to file Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with 02/01/16 CEM A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 0.875 0.500 275.00 275.00 240.63 137.50 137.50 Hours reduced (IEP) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 83 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. 02/01/16 MEG McAndrews regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/02/16 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with 02/02/16 CEM A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/04/16 AS client regarding conference call 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Telephone communications with client regarding IEP Meeting Intraoffice communication with M. Acosta and A. Sauer regarding conference call Telephone communication with counsel, A. Finkhousen, 02/04/16 CEM regarding settlement 0.625 0.500 275.00 275.00 171.88 137.50 137.50 Hours reduced (IEP) Review of file materials 02/05/16 CEM regarding IEP Meeting 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
Preparation of correspondence to client regarding meeting Review of correspondence from client regarding same Telephone communication with client regarding meeting Travel to and attendance at client 02/06/16 CEM meeting regarding IEP 1.750 0.000 275.00 275.00 481.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/08/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting Preparation of correspondence to counsel Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP 02/08/16 CEM Meeting 0.750 0.000 275.00 275.00 206.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/09/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 84 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to counsel Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP meeting Telephone communication with 02/09/16 CEM counsel 0.625 0.500 275.00 275.00 171.88 137.50 137.50 Hours reduced (IEP) Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 02/11/16 DCM settlement 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/11/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting, 02/11/16 CEM exclusion, IEP and field trip 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
Review of correspondences from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding settlement Preparation of correspondences to counsel regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding settlement Telephone communications with 02/12/16 CEM counsel regarding same 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 -
Review of correspondences from counsel, A. Finkhousen Intraoffice communication with 02/12/16 MEG C. McAndrews regarding same 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Review of multiple emails of A. Finkhousen, C. McAndrews Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 02/12/16 DCM settlement 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 02/15/16 JH regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Hours reduced (IEP); Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/17/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 85 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting and field trip Review of correspondence from colleague regarding negotiations Preparation of correspondence to colleague regarding same Research regarding placement Telephone communication with Hours reduced (non- 02/17/16 CEM regarding mental health 0.875 0.125 275.00 275.00 240.63 34.38 34.38 compensable)
Telephone communications with client regarding mental health Hours reduced (non- 02/18/16 CEM and residence 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 compensable)
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence to counsel 02/19/16 MEG Update case status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 02/19/16 DCM settlement 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -
Review of correspondences from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Preparation of correspondence to counsel regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregorson regarding compensatory education Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding same Telephone communication with 02/19/16 CEM client regarding IEP Meeting 1.125 1.000 275.00 275.00 309.38 275.00 275.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 86 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Correspondence with N. Gregorson regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same Telephone communication with client regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding same Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 02/22/16 CEM educational needs 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 02/22/16 DCM settlement 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/22/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Intraoffice communication with 02/23/16 CEM A. Sauer regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 02/24/16 CEM and IEP 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Review Brief of DCPS regarding Judgment on Administrative Record 02/24/16 DCM Review IEP or ER 1.000 0.750 450.00 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 Hours reduced (IEP) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Hours reduced (IEP); Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/24/16 AS client 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO
02/26/16 MEG Preparation of Response Brief 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
02/27/16 MEG Preparation of Response Brief 1.500 1.500 430.00 430.00 645.00 645.00 645.00 -
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with 02/27/16 CEM J. Hardy regarding alerts 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
02/29/16 MEG Preparation of Response Brief 6.750 6.750 430.00 430.00 2,902.50 2,902.50 2,902.50 -
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding settlement Review of correspondence from client Intraoffice communication with 02/29/16 CEM A. Sauer regarding records 0.375 0.250 275.00 275.00 103.13 68.75 68.75 Hours reduced (IEP) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 87 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client regarding IEP and FBA Hours reduced (IEP); Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 02/29/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO
Preparation of Response Brief Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Connolly, H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and C. McAndrews regarding Brief Intraoffice communication with 03/01/16 MEG A. Butler regarding Brief 7.625 7.625 430.00 430.00 3,278.75 3,278.75 3,278.75 -
Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Hours reduced (IEP); Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 03/01/16 AS C. McAndrews regarding same 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Review of correspondence from 03/02/16 MEG counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 - 03/02/16 MJC Review and revise Response 1.375 1.375 430.00 430.00 591.25 591.25 591.25 -
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting and IEP Telephone communication with client regarding same Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding settlement Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding compensatory 03/02/16 CEM education 0.875 0.375 275.00 275.00 240.63 103.13 103.13 Hours reduced (IEP) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Hours reduced (IEP); Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 03/02/16 AS client regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO
Preparation of Response Brief Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education and 03/03/16 MEG cases 9.000 9.000 430.00 430.00 3,870.00 3,870.00 3,870.00 -
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/03/16 AS C. McAndrews regarding same 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 88 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and M. Gehring regarding appeal and IEE Review of file materials regarding Reply Brief Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding Lindamood Bell and evaluation Review and revise Brief Review of case law regarding Brief Research regarding Lindamood Bell Telephone communication with N. Gregorson resolution same Telephone communication with 03/03/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding IEE 4.625 3.500 275.00 275.00 1,271.88 962.50 962.50 Hours reduced (IEE)
Preparation of Response Brief 03/03/16 DCM Review of IEP and IEE 1.750 1.380 450.00 450.00 787.50 621.00 621.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Review of final response to 03/04/16 MJC Motion for Judgment 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Preparation of Response Brief Preparation of materials for 03/04/16 DCM Evaluator 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 -
Review of emails Intraoffice communication regarding Plaintiffs' Opposition Preparation of Certificate of Service Preparation of correspondence to Judge Huvelle Finalize Plaintiffs' Opposition Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 03/04/16 JH regarding same 1.250 1.250 185.00 131.00 231.25 163.75 163.75 USAO Review and revise Brief Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 03/04/16 CEM same and IEE 1.500 1.375 275.00 275.00 412.50 378.13 378.13 Hours reduced (IEE) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 89 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review, revise and finalize Brief Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding filing Intraoffice communication with A. Butler regarding tables Research regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 03/04/16 MEG Brief 8.375 8.000 430.00 430.00 3,601.25 3,440.00 3,440.00 Hours reduced (IEP)
Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced 03/07/16 CEM A. Sauer regarding evaluation 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 (Evaluation)
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/07/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO Review of C. McAndrews email 03/08/16 MEG to A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding evaluation Hours reduced Telephone communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/08/16 AS client 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding settlement Telephone communications with client regarding paperwork, IEP and evaluation Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding settlement and 03/08/16 CEM compensatory education 1.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 309.38 34.38 34.38 Hours reduced (IEP)
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, 03/09/16 DCM regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced (IEP); C. McAndrews regarding IEP Rate reduced to 75% 03/09/16 AS and FBA 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO
Telephone communication with client regarding meeting Meeting with client regarding IEP, evaluations, exclusions and placement Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding IEE Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer H. Cohen 03/09/16 CEM regarding same 4.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 1,134.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 90 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from School District regarding Hours reduced (non- 03/10/16 CEM medical referral 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 compensable)
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/14/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO
Intraoffice communication with 03/15/16 MEG J. Hardy regarding Brief 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of file materials regarding Summary Judgment Motion and Department of Rate reduced to 85% 03/15/16 JH Revenue check 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO
Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding evaluation Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregorson regarding same Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation Review of correspondence from Lindamood Bell regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hours reduced 03/15/16 CEM Complaint 0.750 0.130 275.00 275.00 206.25 35.75 35.75 (Evaluation) Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 03/16/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation and records Review of correspondence from Lindamood Bell regarding evaluation Review of correspondence from client regarding behavior and Hours reduced 03/16/16 CEM speech services 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 (Evaluation)
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation Research regarding transportation and discipline Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Defendant's 03/17/16 CEM Opposition Brief 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - 03/17/16 MEG Review of Reply Brief 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -
Review of file materials Rate reduced to 85% 03/17/16 JH regarding School District's Reply 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 91 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Hours reduced (IEP); Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 03/17/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 USAO Research regarding cases for possible Reply Brief Order Oral 03/18/16 DCM Argument 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Review of correspondence from client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 03/18/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation and behavior Review of file materials regarding transportation and Hours reduced 03/18/16 CEM discipline 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 (Evaluation) Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding behavior and Hours reduced 03/21/16 CEM evaluation 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 (Evaluation)
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/21/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO
Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced 03/22/16 CEM A. Sauer regarding evaluation 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 (Evaluation)
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/22/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Oral 03/23/16 MEG Argument 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of School District Reply Memorandum Research, preparation for possible oral argument Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding use of 03/23/16 DCM compensatory education 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 -
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/23/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 92 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Telephone communications with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and M. Gehring regarding Oral Argument and evaluation Research regarding appeal Review of correspondence from 03/23/16 CEM client regarding evaluation 2.000 0.130 275.00 275.00 550.00 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with 03/24/16 HBK C. McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -
Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Hours reduced Intraoffice communication with (Evaluation); Rate 03/24/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 131.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 reduced to 85% USAO
Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding referral Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluations and records Review of file materials regarding same, IEP and meetings Telephone communication with Mr. Jones regarding observations Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring and D.C. 03/24/16 CEM McAndrews regarding appeal 1.750 0.130 275.00 275.00 481.25 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEP)
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. 03/24/16 MEG McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.000 430.00 430.00 107.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP) Preparation of Request for Hearing Preparation of correspondence to 03/28/16 MEG counsel 1.250 1.250 430.00 430.00 537.50 537.50 537.50 - Rate reduced to 85% 03/28/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 93 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding same Intraoffice communication with 03/28/16 CEM M. Gehring regarding Hearing 0.500 0.130 275.00 275.00 137.50 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE) Intraoffice communication with 03/28/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.500 0.000 155.00 116.00 77.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE) 03/30/16 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of correspondence from Hours reduced 03/30/16 CEM client regarding evaluation 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 (Evaluation) Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 04/01/16 MEG Motion 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Preparation of Motion for Oral Argument Review Answer of School 04/01/16 DCM District 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 - Review of file materials regarding Motion for Oral Rate reduced to 85% 04/01/16 JH Argument 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review and edit Motion Intraoffice communication with 04/04/16 CEM M. Connolly regarding Motion 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -
Intraoffice communication with 04/04/16 MEG C. McAndrews regarding Motion 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Review and revise Motion for 04/04/16 MJC Oral Argument 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding 04/05/16 CEM correspondence to Court 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy and E. Gilmore regarding admission Research regarding same Finalize Motion for Oral 04/05/16 MEG Argument 0.750 0.750 430.00 430.00 322.50 322.50 322.50 -
Review of file materials regarding Motion for Oral Argument Finalize same Preparation of Certificate of Service Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 85% 04/05/16 JH Clerk, USDC 0.875 0.875 185.00 131.00 161.88 114.63 114.63 USAO Review of correspondence from client regarding implementation Hours reduced (non- 04/05/16 DCM issues 0.250 0.000 450.00 450.00 112.50 0.00 0.00 compensable)
Intraoffice communication with Hours reduced C. McAndrews regarding (Evaluation); Rate 04/06/16 AS evaluations 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 reduced to 75% USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 94 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to 04/06/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding same 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of correspondences from H. Cohen regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Preparation of correspondence to 04/06/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding IEE 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE) Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Federal Court and 04/07/16 CEM referral 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Federal 04/07/16 HBK Court and referral 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of correspondence from 04/10/16 DCM counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status Review of correspondence from 04/11/16 MEG counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Review of file materials regarding Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Rate reduced to 85% 04/11/16 JH Hearing 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of Defendant's 04/12/16 DCM Opposition to Oral Argument 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding compensatory education Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to 04/12/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding same 0.250 0.130 275.00 275.00 68.75 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 95 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of Motion in Opposition of Oral Argument Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregorson regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Review of correspondence from 04/13/16 CEM counsel 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 - Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding compensatory education 04/13/16 DCM transportation 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring, H.B. Konkler- Goldsmith and D.C. McAndrews regarding program and case law Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Oral Argument Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Federal Court and compensatory education Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding evaluation Preparation of correspondence to 04/14/16 CEM N. Gregorson regarding same 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 -
04/14/16 DCM Review of recent case law 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Review of correspondence from Rate reduced to 75% 04/14/16 AS counsel 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding new matter Review of correspondence from Hours reduced (non- 04/14/16 MEG counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 215.00 0.00 0.00 compensable) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Federal Court and compensatory 04/15/16 HBK education 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 96 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding authority Preparation of Notice 04/15/16 MEG Research regarding procedure 0.875 0.875 430.00 430.00 376.25 376.25 376.25 -
Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding use of compensatory education Review of Lindamood Bell 04/15/16 DCM report 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Review of emails Intraoffice communication regarding case law Telephone communication with Judge's chambers Review of file materials regarding Notice of Additional Authority Preparation of correspondence to Judge Huvelli Preparation of Certificate of Service Rate reduced to 85% 04/15/16 JH Finalize Notice 1.125 1.125 185.00 131.00 208.13 147.38 147.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with 04/15/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to 04/15/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding same 0.250 0.130 275.00 275.00 68.75 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding status 04/18/16 MEG Review of response 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Review of correspondence from 04/18/16 DCM J. Fields regarding compliance 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
Review of correspondence from J. Fields regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring and J. Hardy regarding same Review of correspondence from 04/18/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding IEE 0.250 0.130 275.00 275.00 68.75 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE) Rate reduced to 85% 04/20/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 97 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Review of independent report Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 04/20/16 CEM same and IEE 1.000 0.000 275.00 275.00 275.00 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Federal 04/21/16 HBK Court 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Review of email to A. 04/21/16 MEG Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of emails regarding Rate reduced to 85% 04/21/16 JH compensatory education fund 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Preparation of correspondence to DCPS regarding authorization for compensatory education Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Federal Court Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondences to counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEE Preparation of correspondences to H. Cohen regarding same Telephone communication with counsel regarding compensatory education Review of correspondence from counsel regarding same Review of correspondence from 04/21/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding IEE 1.250 0.750 275.00 275.00 343.75 206.25 206.25 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of materials regarding possible IEE Review of correspondences from 04/21/16 DCM counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.625 0.000 450.00 450.00 281.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of correspondence from 04/22/16 MEG counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of correspondence from 04/22/16 DCM counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 98 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding compensatory education Telephone communication with H. Cohen regarding IEE Review of file materials 04/22/16 CEM regarding same 0.375 0.125 275.00 275.00 103.13 34.38 34.38 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to 04/24/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding same 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding use of 04/25/16 DCM compensatory education 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -
Review of file materials regarding IEE Review of DCPS Court materials Telephone communication with H. Cohen regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 04/25/16 CEM same 1.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 378.13 103.13 103.13 Hours reduced (IEE) Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 04/26/16 CEM regarding IEE 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with 04/26/16 HBK C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of correspondences from A. Anokye regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondences 04/29/16 CEM to A. Anokye regarding same 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -
Intraoffice communication with 04/29/16 MEG C. McAndrews regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -
Review of School District's compensatory education plan Review of correspondence from 04/29/16 DCM counsel, A. Anokye 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 - Rate reduced to 85% 04/29/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding tutoring Preparation of correspondence to 05/02/16 CEM N. Gregorson regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 99 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Preparation of correspondences to A. Anokye regarding compensatory education Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding same Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Federal matter Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding same and compensatory education Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, 05/03/16 CEM regarding Motion 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 -
Review of correspondence from A. Anokye Intraoffice communication with 05/03/16 MEG C. McAndrews regarding status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -
Review of correspondences from N. Gregerson regarding compliance with compensatory education award and compensatory education supplementation Review of correspondence regarding implementation issues Review of correspondences from counsel, A. Anokye enclosing 05/03/16 DCM Authorization 0.625 0.630 450.00 450.00 281.25 283.50 283.50 - Rate reduced to 85% 05/03/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and M. Gehring regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to 05/04/16 CEM N. Gregorson regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -
Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding status Preparation of correspondence to 05/04/16 MEG counsel 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 100 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding 05/04/16 DCM compensatory education 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 - Rate reduced to 85% 05/04/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education Review of correspondences from N. Gregorson regarding same Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregorson regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring and D.C. McAndrews regarding 05/05/16 CEM Stipulation 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Stipulation Review of Stipulation Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence from 05/05/16 MEG counsel 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 - Review of correspondence from counsel Review of file materials Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/05/16 AS client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Rate reduced to 85% 05/05/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO 05/06/16 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/06/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education and summer program Telephone communication with client regarding same Research regarding summer program Telephone communication with H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to 05/09/16 CEM H. Cohen regarding same 2.375 0.000 275.00 275.00 653.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 101 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding 05/10/16 CEM compensatory education 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with 05/10/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE) Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding 05/11/16 CEM transportation 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/11/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with Rate reduced to 75% 05/12/16 AS C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with 05/16/16 CEM L. O'Connell regarding transfer 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - Rate reduced to 85% 05/17/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO
Review of file materials regarding IEE and Federal Court appeal Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to J. Fields regarding IEE Request Review of correspondence from J. Fields regarding same Intraoffice communication regarding transfer Review of correspondence from 05/17/16 CEM colleague regarding IEE 1.625 0.250 275.00 275.00 446.88 68.75 68.75 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status 05/17/16 MEG Review of IEE Request 0.250 0.000 430.00 430.00 107.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of materials from school psychologist Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding IEE 05/17/16 DCM Request and compliance issues 0.375 0.125 450.00 450.00 168.75 56.25 56.25 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with A. Butler regarding Release Intraoffice communication with 05/18/16 MEG C. McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 - Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 102 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 75% 05/18/16 AS counsel 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Rate reduced to 85% 05/18/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 USAO Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, A. Sauer and M. Gehring regarding IEE 05/18/16 CEM Request 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding IEE Request Research recent cases regarding statute of limitations and 05/18/16 DCM compensatory education 0.625 0.250 450.00 450.00 281.25 112.50 112.50 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy Preparation of correspondence to Rate reduced to 75% 05/19/16 AS client 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 USAO Rate reduced to 85% 05/19/16 JH Review of emails 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 USAO
Review of correspondence from 05/19/16 CEM J. Fields regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE) Update case status Review of correspondence from 05/19/16 MEG J. Fields 0.375 0.125 430.00 430.00 161.25 53.75 53.75 Hours reduced (IEE)
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Gehring 05/23/16 CEM and J. Hardy regarding Decision 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -
Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding status Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, C. McAndrews, M. Connolly and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Decision 05/23/16 MEG Review of Decision 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 - Review Opinion and Order of 05/23/16 DCM Court 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 - Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy and Rate reduced to 75% 05/23/16 AS M. Gehring 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 USAO
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Gehring No fee awarded (Post- 05/24/16 CEM and J. Hardy regarding Decision 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 judgment) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 103 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, H.B. Konkler- Goldsmith, M. Connolly, C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding status and Fee Petition Research regarding Fee Petition Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Decision Intraoffice communication with No fee awarded (Post- 05/24/16 MEG T. Baker regarding invoice 1.375 0.000 430.00 430.00 591.25 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding No fee awarded (Post- 05/24/16 DCM compliance and remand issues 0.125 0.000 450.00 450.00 56.25 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy, M. Gehring, M. Connolly and H.B. No fee awarded (Post- 05/24/16 AS Konkler-Goldsmith 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 judgment) No fee awarded (Post- 05/24/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0.00 judgment) No fee awarded (Post- 05/25/16 MEG Research regarding Fee Petition 0.375 0.000 430.00 430.00 161.25 0.00 0.00 judgment) Review of correspondence from No fee awarded (Post- 05/25/16 DCM J. Fields regarding IEE 0.125 0.000 450.00 450.00 56.25 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Intraoffice communication with No fee awarded (Post- 05/25/16 AS D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 judgment) Intraoffice communication with No fee awarded (Post- 05/26/16 AS A. Butler 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 judgment) Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding compensatory No fee awarded (Post- 05/27/16 CEM education 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 judgment) Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and A. Sauer No fee awarded (Post- 05/27/16 MEG regarding status 0.375 0.000 430.00 430.00 161.25 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy, M. Gehring, A. Hagan and H.B. No fee awarded (Post- 05/27/16 AS Konkler-Goldsmith 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 judgment) No fee awarded (Post- 05/28/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0.00 judgment) Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 104 of 104 Civil Action No. 15‐851 (ESH)
A Research regarding attorneys' fees Preparation of Motion for Attorneys' Fees Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Intraoffice communication with No fee awarded (Post- 05/31/16 MEG A. Butler regarding Motion 2.250 0.000 430.00 430.00 967.50 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Preparation of email to J. Fields No fee awarded (Post- 06/01/16 JH Review of emails 0.250 0.000 185.00 131.00 46.25 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Review of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen Preparation of Fee Petition papers Intraoffice communication with T. Baker regarding invoice Review of emails between client No fee awarded (Post- 06/02/16 MEG and Case Manager 7.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 3,225.00 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Intraoffice communication with M. Connolly regarding Motion Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence from counsel Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding status and invoice Review of correspondence from A. Allen-King Intraoffice communication with T. Baker regarding invoice Preparation of Fee Petition papers No fee awarded (Post- 06/03/16 MEG Research regarding Rules 7.875 0.000 430.00 430.00 3,386.25 0.00 0.00 judgment)
Total Total Total Hours Total Hours Total Fees Fee Awarded after Hours Hours * Rate * Rate (before 15% reduction for Claimed Credited Claimed Credited reductions) complexity and 5% reduction for block billing
TOTALS 618.000 503.700 212081.51 168473.03 161903.98 $129,523.18
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
S. v. District of Columbia Public Schools, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-v-district-of-columbia-public-schools-dcd-2016.