Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): hours and hourly rates.... [And fee counsel must supply] the court with specific and detailed evidence from which the court can determine the reasonable hourly rate.” Norman v. Hous. Auth., 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir.1988). At a minimum, the party seeking attorney’s fees must produce more than an affidavit from the attorney performing the work. Id. at 1299. Aetna fell short of meeting this burden. However, we have held that “[w]here documentation is inadequate, the district court is not relieved of its obligation to award a reasonable fee ... the district court traditionally has had the power to make such an award without the need of further pleadings or an evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 1303; see also Thompson v. Pharmacy Corp. of Am., 334 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the district court should have given 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that lower courts application of a some effort standard was an abuse of discretion (B) recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard (C) holding the district courts conclusion that the attorney should receive no compensation was an abuse of discretion because we are confident that some legitimate time was expended by the attorney (D) holding that where an attorney serves as trustee and attorney for the trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding the attorney must distinguish time spent in each role (E) holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel
Output (English): holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel