Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): date of the EAJA as originally enaeted. See Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir.1990). Plaintiffs, however, have not provided a calculation for such an adjustment, likely because their position was that they should recover $200 per hour for the two primary attorneys involved in this case, or in the alternative, that the $125 per hour cap should apply. The Court will provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to submit a proposed calculation for a cost of living adjustment in this case and give the Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ calculation. In devising their proposed calculation, Plaintiffs should take into account the rate of inflation for each relevant year and establish the compounding effect of fees since 1981. The number of h 19, 325 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). When the hourly rate allowed is as low as 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that based on leftwich the law of this circuit is that computerbased legal research must be factored into the attorneys hourly rate hence the cost of the computer time may not be added to the fee award (B) holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances (C) holding that attorneys fees would include expenses for computerized legal research and thus not allowing computerized legal research as a separate taxable cost (D) holding that computeraided research like any other form of legal research is a component of attorneys fees and cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost in addition to the attorneys fee award (E) holding that the costs of computerized research was a component of attorneys fees that cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost
Output (English): holding that the costs of computerized research was a component of attorneys fees that cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost