## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) DAMARCUS S., by and through his ) Parent, K.S., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action N o. 15-851 (ESH) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Damarcus S. and his mother, K.S., have moved for at torney’s fees and costs
pursuant to the Individuals wit h Disabilities Education Act (“I DEA”), 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 A ttorneys’ Fees and Costs [EC F No. 25] (“Pls.’ Mot.”).) The
District of Columbia (the “Dist rict”) does not dispute that pla intiffs are entitled to fees, but it
argues that plaintiffs’ request of $212,081.51 in fees and $4,0 97.60 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 t he full amount requested, thoug h they are entitled to more than the
District proposes to pay. There fore, plaintiffs’ motion will b e granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND
The background of this case has be en laid out in g reat detail i n 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 a n administrative complaint with the

## 2 District in December 2014, alleging that numerous deficiencies in the District’s educational
plans for Damarcus denied him a Free Appropriate Public Educati on (“FAPE”), to which he is

entitled under IDEA. 1 

## Id. at *2. After an administrative Due Process Hearing in March 2 015,
the Hearing Officer determined tha t plaintiffs were time-barred from pursuing any claims
involving conduct prior to D ecember 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 indepe ndent behavioral evaluation of D amarcus, and (2) fifty hours of
behavioral support services. Id. But without explanati on, the Hearing Officer ruled that those
behavioral-support hours would be forfeited if plaintiffs did n ot use them before June 30, 2016.

Id.

Plaintiffs filed suit in this C ourt to challenge the Hearing O fficer’s adverse
determinations, and the parties t hen cross-moved for summary ju dgment. The Court found for
plaintiffs on many claims: (1) tha t the Hearing Officer erred i n her blanket dismissal of all claims
arising out of pre-December 2012 c onduct, rather than conductin g 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 (“IE P”) in response to his
demonstrated lack of progress, id. at *12; (3) that the Hearing Of ficer’s compensatory award was
improperly limited as to both subj ect (behaviora l support servi ces) and time (the June 2016
forfeiture provision), id. at *14; (4) that the compensato ry award of fifty hours was ins ufficient

1 

## Plaintiffs also filed two previ ous complaints that involved si milar claims, but they were withdrawn prior to being adjudicated. Damarcus S. , 2016 WL 2993158, at *2.

## 3 by failing to reflect the pervasive effect of Damarcus’s behavi or on all aspects of his education,

id. at *14-*15; and (5) that plaint iffs were entitled to reimburse ment for an independent
neuropsychological evaluation of Damarcus, id. at *15. In light of deficien cies in the record, the
Court remanded to the Hearing Offi cer to allow the parties to m ore fully brief the issue of an
appropriate award of com pensatory education. Id. at *12, *15.
On the other hand, the Court reje cted plaintiffs’ remaining cla ims: (1) that Damarcus’s
2013 and 2014 IEPs were necessarily deficient because they reli ed 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-bas ed, peer-reviewed ins truction, and set inap propriately low benchmarks, id. at
*9-*10; (3) that the District f ailed to place Damarcus in the l east restrictive environment, id. at
*12; (4) that the District inappr opriately implemented Damarcus ’s IEPs, id. at *13; (5) that the

District’s treatment of Damar cus violated Section 504 of the Re habilitation 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 pl aintiffs’ entitlement to attor ney’s fees, given the many
claims on which plaintiffs have pr evailed. However, the Distri ct argues that the award requested
by plaintiffs is unreasonable on several grounds, which the Cou rt will now turn to.

I. UNREASONABLE BILLING RATES
The District first argues th at the hourly rates sought by plain tiffs’ attorneys and
paralegals are unreasonable. ( Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 4–11.) In d etermining 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 ki nd and quality of services furnis hed.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C).

## 4 Plaintiffs bear the burden on this issue, as with all other asp ects 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 ent itlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours, and
justifying the reasonablene ss of the rates[.]”).
In addition to offering their own a ttorneys’ affidavits, fee ap plicants may also “submit
attorneys’ fee matrices as one t ype 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 s et out the hourly fees cha rged by
attorneys at various levels of experience in a particular commu nity for the same type of work,
which offer a “somewhat crude” approximation of prevailing mark et 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 (“US AO”) and updated annually to adjus t for inflation. Eley , 793 F.3d
at 100-01. However, beginni ng on June 1, 2015, the USAO discon tinued 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 Ma trix – 2015 – 2016, https://www.justice .gov/usaodc/file/796471/download. 2



## Here, plaintiffs’ counsel submit an affidavit from Dennis C. Mc Andrews, the Managing

Partner at their firm, which att ests that these “hourly rates f or attorneys of comparable

2 

## The USAO Matrix rates are gene rally higher tha n the previous y ear’s Laffey Matrix rates. Compare USAO Attorney’s Fees Mat rix – 2015 – 2016, https://www.justice .gov/usaodc/file/796471/download, with Laffey Matrix – 2014-2015, https://www.justice.gov/sites/defa ult/files/usao-d c/legacy/2014 /07/14/Laffey%20Matrix_2014- 2015.pdf. That said, once annual infl ation is considered, the matrices are similar enough to make reliance on Laffey Matrix cases appropriate here. Indeed, the parties’ briefs te nd to use the

“ Laffey ” and “USAO” descriptors interchangeably. ( See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 6 n.2.)

## 5 experience and skill in this area are at least equal to, and fr equently exceed, the hourly rates”
they have requested. (Ex. B t o Pls.’ Mot. [ECF No. 25-3] ¶ 17. ) They also submit affidavits
from local attorneys who di d not work on this case, stating tha t the rates charged by plaintiffs’
attorneys are consistent wit h those charged by their firms and other area firms, including in
IDEA cases. (Ex. 1 to Pls.’ Repl y Br. [ECF No. 2 9-1] ¶¶ 13, 22 ; Ex. 2 to Pls.’ Reply Br. [ECF
No. 29-2] ¶ 10.) Finally, they subm it the 2015-16 USAO Matrix, which reflects ra tes charged in

District of Columbia courts in ci vil 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 Matri x are uniformly higher than tho se sought by plaintiffs.
( Compare Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. with Ex. C to Pl.’s Mot. at 1.)
The District argues th at the rates in the Laffey or USAO Matrices s hould not be applied

here, because those matrices est ablish presumptive rates for mo re complex federal litigation than
typical IDEA administrative pr oceedings. (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, especi ally 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 r epeating that plaintiffs do not se ek full USAO rates, or even a
uniform percentage of them. Ins tead, they seek the rates custo marily charged by their firm ( see
Ex. B to Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 4), whic h vary by attorney and are unifor mly 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).)

## 6 experience level (38 years) woul d receive under the current USA O 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. (bi lling out fourth-year attorneys a t $230/hour and $240/hour,

which is 71% and 74% of the USAO rates, respectively). The hig hest attorney rates sought by
plaintiffs in relati on to the current US AO Matrix are only 85% of those rates. ( See Ex. A to Pls.’
Mot. (billing out Atto rney CEM (4 years) at $275/hour, where fu ll 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 r elevant question is whether pla intiffs have shouldered their

burden to show that the rates they actually seek are reasonable.
Moreover, plaintiffs are corre ct that many of the cases cited by the District involved

routine IDEA ma tters, 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 admin istrative
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 involv ed “no ‘novel questions of la w,’ 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 eit her defaulted or

failed to contest issues, no admin istrative hearing was conduct ed due to settlement, or hearing
had limited number of witnesses).

Here, in contrast, the parties engaged in a two-day hearing wit h ten witnesses and sixtyeight exhibits, resulting in t he creation of a 1,300 page admin istrative record. ( See Pls.’ Reply

Br. at 11; Administrative Recor d [ECF Nos. 12-13].) The case i nvolved a challenging question

## 7 of statutory interpretation that was a matter of first impressi on in this district, which arose from
an apparent drafting error in t he 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 D istrict discounts that complex ity when it chides plaintiffs for
“[m]erely summarizi ng the reasoning of” G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority , 802
F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 2015), which this C ourt ultimately adopted. ( See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 8.) But
the statutory issue was a pparently complex enough that both parties here actua lly reversed the
positions they took below. ( See Def.’s Cross-Mot. for S umm. J. [ECF No. 16] at 13 n.6.)

Furthermore, the issue of how t o properly evaluate Damarcus’s d isability—whether to use a FullScale IQ or General Ability Index—was complicated, something th e 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 t hat rates falling between 75% a nd 100% of Laffey / USAO Matrix

rates are reasonable.
This raises the question of whi ch rates should serve as the app ropriate point of
comparison: the current USAO rate s, or the rates that applied i n the years that the work was
actually performed. As noted, plaint iffs’ requested rates rang e from 71% to 85% of the current

USAO rates; however, when usi ng the lower 2013-14 Laffey rates 4 

## as a point of comparison,
those relative percenta ges rise to 84% to 110%. ( See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot.; Ex. B to Pls.’ Mot.
(billing out Attorne y MEG (25 years) at $430 /hour, where full L affey rate was $510/ hour;
billing out Attorney CEM (2 year s) 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/usaodc/legacy/2013/09/09/Laffey_Matrix%202014.pdf.

## 8 words, plaintiffs seek rates for previous years’ work that occa sionally exceed the Laffey rates that
applied in those years, even t hough they all fall below the USA O 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 dela y 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 t he application of historical rates. Id. ; see also JacksonJohnson 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 th is three-year IDEA case, no dil atory conduct on the part of the

District, and as noted, the ra tes requested by plaintiffs are m ore reasonable in comparison to
recent years’ Matrix rates than t o those prior years’ rates. See West , 717 F.3d at 240 (appropriate
to apply historical ra tes if delay in payment was brief, or if rates sought by plaintiffs incorporate
compensation for delayed payment). The Court thus deems it app ropriate to compare plaintiffs’
requested rates to those in eff ect at the time the work was per formed. As discussed, plaintiffs are

entitled to attorne ys’ rates that fal l between 75%-100% of Laffey / USAO Matrix rates, so if an
attorney’s requested rate exceeds the Laffey or USAO Matrix rate for th at year, it shall be capped
at the lower rate. ( See, e.g. , Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. (showing that Attorney CEM’s requested ra te

exceeds the full Laffey rate from 2012-13 to 2014-15, and tha t Attorney HMH’s requeste d rate

exceeds the full Laffey rate in 2012-13 and 2013-14).)

One final note on rates: the a bove analysis has focused only on attorneys’ rates, not on
those sought for paralegals and l egal assistants. Here, plaint iffs seek rates that exceed the current

## 9 USAO rate for their legal assi stants and paralegals, and signif icantly 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 parale gals justifies their rates—whi ch are 20% higher than the full

USAO rate—and that their “know ledge and expertise play a vital role in the continued success
and growth” of the law firm. ( See id. ) However, the analysis he re involves a comparison to
prevailing rates in the comm unity, based on the type of service s provided. See 20 U.S.C. §
1415(i)(3)(C). The only relevant e vidence that plaintiffs them selves offer ( i.e. , the 2015-16
USAO Matrix) demonstrates that th ey seek far more for their sen ior paralegals than the
prevailing community rate. ( See Ex. C to Pls.’ Mot. at 1 (taking no account of paralegals’ lev el
of experience).) Plaintiffs do not suggest that these paralega ls did more complex work than
paralegals working on similar ID EA cases, such that an upward d eparture might be justified.
Nor do they offer any explanati on as to why their other paraleg als 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 Matr ix rate ($131/hour), and their r emaining paralegals and legal

assistants 75% of the U SAO rate ($116/hour).

These rates are commensurate t o the rates award ed to plaintiffs ’ attorneys, which ranged

from 71% to 85% of the current US AO rates. They also fall belo w the historical Laffey rates for
previous years’ work, so they a re reasonably applied throughout the course of t his litigation.

II. LIMITED SUCCESS
The District next argues that plaintiffs’ fee request should b e 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, b ecause plaintiffs’ various cl aims are interrelated, it is

## 10 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 rel ief they sought.” ( See Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 14.) Although the Hear ing Officer must still dete rmine the precise amount of
compensatory education that Damarcus will receive, it is beyond dispute that the award will be
significant: not only was the exi sting behavioral award of 50 h ours 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-l anguage 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 a lleged violations that the Hea ring Officer erroneously deemed

time-barred. See id. at *6. On the other side of the s cale, the claims that the Co urt rejected were
less significant—if plaintiffs had succeeded on those claims, t hey would have received far less

relief. See, e.g. , id. at *9-*10 (plaintiffs’ claims regarding IEP baselines, IEP goa ls, and
specificity of IEPs, even if th eoretically plausible, failed be cause they caused no injury); id. at
*16 (if successful, plaintiffs’ Re habilitation Act claim would only have entitled them to expert
witness fees). Therefore, in lig ht of the fact that plaintiffs received a substantial majority of the
relief they sought, the Court fi nds that a 15% reduction of the total fee award is appropriate.

III. BILLING PRACTICES

The District takes issue with t hree billing prac tices reflected in plaintiffs’ invoice,
arguing that the use of these prac tices warrants a further 25% reduction of the total fee award.
(Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 14-17.)

## 11 First, it asserts th at plaintiffs’ invoice calculates time to t he eighth of an hour, rather than
“the industry-norm of billing t o the tenth of an hour,” resulti ng in a less accurate bill. ( Id. at 15.)
It is certainly true that the a ward may “be reduced to account for any inaccuracies and
overbilling that may have occurre d 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 th e District involved courts’ disapproval of billing to quarterhour 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 w hich billing to the eighth of an
hour has been disapproved. In fact , courts in this district ha ve 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 Responsibili ty & Ethics in Washington v.

FEC , 66 F. Supp. 3d 134, 150 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting “a preference f or time records that are, at
most, in quarter-hour increments” ). Thus, there is simply no b asis to argue that plaintiffs’ billing
to the eighth of an hour is improper.
Second, the District argues tha t rounding errors have inflated plaintiffs’ invoice. (Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 15-16.) In particul ar, it points out that plainti ffs’ 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 reque st, and therefore it is wholly irrelevant. Plaintiffs arrived at their
fee request by multiplying each individual time entry by the ap propriate rate—which the District

## 12 acknowledges they did correctly ( id. at 15)—and then they added the correct individual amounts
together. ( See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot.) It would ha ve been impossible to calcula te the total fee
request using the total hours figure, because each attorney cha rged a different rate and thus the
multiplier would have varied. As a result, no purported roundi ng errors affected pl aintiffs’ total
fee request. 5



## Finally, plaintiffs assert tha t a reduction is warranted due t o the invoice’s inappropriate
use of block billing. ( See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 16-17.) B lock billing involves lumping mu ltiple
tasks into a single time entry, w hich 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 com pletely 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 s even 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 t his 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 a lso state that block billing is the result of the computer program
used by McAndrews Law Offices, ar guing that this practice is mo re efficient. ( Id. at 22.)

5 

## The District also goes to the t rouble of asserting an overage of $2.135, which it apparently arrived at by adding fractions of pennies that plaintiffs round ed 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 rea sonable overall award, not with fractions of penni es 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)”).

## 13 Plaintiffs’ efforts to defend bl ock billing are unpersuasive, p articularly considering that
they bear the burden of justif ying their fee request. See Covington , 57 F.3d at 1107. Although it

is of course true that block bil ling 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 ta sks are adequately described, th ere is simply no way for the Court to
assess whether the time spent on each of those tasks was reason able. 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 s mall, the risk of inaccuracy is
also small—if an attorney spe nds a half-hour emailing opposing counsel and reviewing her
response, the Court can be reason ably assured that the time spe nt was justified. However, if the
attorney spends 10.8 hours researching standing, emailing co-co unsel, revising a brief, and
teleconferencing with the client , the Court lacks that same ass urance. Did the research take nine

hours? Was it a four-hour telec onference? The Court has no id ea.
By the same token, the efficien cy of block billing is irrelevan t, as is the type of computer
system used by plaintiffs’ firm—eve n if plaintiffs’ attorneys m ight benefit from block billing, the
Court is concerned here only with t heir ability to justify thei r 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 s mall fraction” of entries were block-billed), but

## 14 this entire invoice here is bloc k-billed. As a result, the Cou rt will reduce plaintiffs’ total award
by an additional 5%.

IV. NON-COMPENSABLE TIME

The District takes issue with num erous entries that it argues a re either wholly noncompensable or improperly billed: time related to resolution se ssions meetings (RSMs); time
spent on plaintiffs’ earlier admini strative complaints, which t hey voluntarily withdrew; attorney
travel time; and time that the District alleges is related to p laintiffs’ ongoing concerns rather than
the instant litigation.

A. Resolution Session Meetings
The District argue s that plaintiffs s hould not be reimbursed f or 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 subsecti on (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 judici al action for purposes of [20 U .S.C. § 1415(i)(3)].”)).) In
response, plaintiffs have agreed t o withdraw their request for time spent participating in the
RSMs, but they insist that time sp ent preparing for those sessi ons is fully compensable. ( See
Pls.’ Reply Br. at 23-24.)
Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii), when r ead in context with other pro visions 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 ca ses)
(noting that it is “well-establi shed” that fees related to RSMs are non-compensable). First, an

## 15 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 prohi bited 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 sp ent preparing for an RSM—whi ch “relat[es] to [a] meeting of
the IEP Team”—would only be compe nsable if the exception applie s, i.e. , if the RSM was

“convened as a result of an admin istrative proceeding or judici al action.” See id. However, the
very next provision makes cle ar that this exception does not apply to an RSM, which “shall not
be considered . . . a meeting convene d as a result of an admini strative hearing or j udicial action.”

See id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii)(I).
The Court recognizes that this i ssue 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 ack nowledging the
minor statutory inconsistenc y—Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(ii) uses th e 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 r esult of imprecise d rafting. Cf.
G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sc hool District Authority , 802 F.3d 601, 624 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding that
an inconsistency in another pa rt of Section 1415 was the result of a drafting error). The
linguistic structure of the excep tion in (D)(ii) is otherwise i dentical to the stru cture 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 pr ovision in (D)(iii) has no appar ent effect—it is only given
meaning if an RSM is an IEP mee ting for which attorneys cannot recover for. There is simply
no other way to explain its presen ce in a subsection entitled “ Prohibition of attorneys’ fees and

related costs for cer tain services.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii).

## 16 Therefore, plaintiffs’ request for RSM preparation fees is deni ed. 6



## B. Time Spent on “Earlier Cases”
In May 2013 and January 2014, plai ntiffs filed and later volun tarily withdrew two
administrative complaints against the District, prior to the De cember 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 compl aint raised “basically the same issues” as those raised
here, while the January 2014 com plaint sought an independent ev aluation for which plaintiffs
were ultimately awarded reimbursement here. Id. at *2, *15. The District ar gues that plaintiffs
are not entitled to any reimburse ment for work done prior to No vember 6, 2014, because that

work related to “earlier cases” in which plaintiffs were not th e prevailing party. ( See Def.’s
Opp’n Br. at 19-20.) Plaintiffs respond that these do not repr esent 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 prev ailing parties in their earlier
complaints, that is not the relev ant 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 D istrict does not dispute t he interrelatedness of the issues
raised in the withdrawn compla ints and those ra ised here, nor c ould it. Thus, there is no question

that much of that earlier wor k contributed to plaintiffs’ succe ss in this litigation, and as a result,
the District’s argument for a full reduction fails. Neverthele ss, the Court finds tha t plaintiffs are

6 

## Plaintiffs note that their RSM preparation fees are block bill ed together with unrelated, compensable fees. ( See Pls.’ Reply Br. at 24.) This i s 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 rem ain compensable and award only thos e fees.

## 17 not entitled to full reimburseme nt, given that the withdrawal o f those complaints prolonged the
overall litigation by roughly nineteen months. Despite plainti ffs’ argument that “ [a]ll of the

work that went into the initial D ue Process complaints was dire ctly relevant to this litigation”
(Pls.’ Reply. Br. at 25), there is no question that this ninete en-month delay created much

additional work, even if it was t echnically “relevant” to this litigation. ( See, e.g. , Ex. A to Pls.’
Mot. at 23 (charges for prepa ration of second complaint); id. at 26 (charges related to Prehearing

Conference that was later rende red unnecessary by withdrawal).) To account for this selfimposed delay, which is not reason ably 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 att orney 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, tra vel time is compensated at
half of the attorney’s rate.”) . Plaintiffs’ award will be redu ced accordingly.

D. Unrelated Time
The District challenges numerous charges incurred after Februa ry 17, 2016, which it
argues are unrelated to the in stant litigation and therefore no n-compensable. ( See Def.’s Opp’n
Br. at 22-23 & Table 3.) Plainti ffs argue that these entries a re clearly related, because they

concern
(a) counsel’s efforts to imple ment the Hearing Officer’s and th is Court’s award of compensatory education, inclu ding through communications with c ounsel for the District; (b) prepara tion 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.

## 18 (Pls.’ Reply Br. at 27.)

Time entries that fall into the latter two categories are comp ensable at the rates already
approved by the Court. However, t he Court’s determination of r easonable rates took into
account only the complexity of the litigation to the point of j udgment ( i.e. , May 23, 2016), and

those are not directl y applicable to the fo rmer two categories. The Court is not inclined to
address in piecemeal fashion the fees performed on remand and i n implementing relief: the
process is still ongoing, and, at th is juncture, the Court cann ot determine the complexity of the
legal work involved.
Moreover, the invoice plainly ref lects that certain entries fa ll outside of the four
categories listed by plaintiffs, a nd thus, they are not compens able. It is unclear , for instance,

how work related to future IEP m eetings; Damarcus’s current men tal health and residence;
“alerts;” “Department of Revenue check[s];” or Damarcus’s curre nt IEP, FBA, evaluations, or
medical referrals have anythi ng to do with this litigation. ( See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. at 96-118.)
Again, these non-compensable entr ies have been block-billed wit h compensable entries.
Therefore, as with the time plai ntiffs claimed for RSMs, the Co urt will approximate the
necessary reduction of e ach blocked entry.

V. OVER-STAFFING
Finally, in one short paragra ph, the District ar gues that plai ntiffs overstaffed the case.
( See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 21.) It notes that fiv e senior attorneys and three junior attorneys worked

on the case over the course of t he litigation, and that at time s “two professionals perform[ed] the
same task.” ( Id. at 21 & n.14.) However, a look at the “duplicative” entries f lagged by the
District reveals nothing impr oper. For instance, on June 11, 2 014, the task that two professionals
performed was communi cating with one another. ( See Ex. A to Pls.’ Mot. at 34.) Of course,

## 19 both attorneys could properly bill for that time. And regardle ss of the total number of attorneys

that touched the case, the invoice reflects that a single attor ney was responsible for the majority
of charges at any one point in tim e, something the District its elf 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’ mo tion 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/09/13 JH Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/14/13 JH Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/16/13 DCM Review of Intake 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 45.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

01/16/13 JH Preparation of Intake Preparation of correspondence to client 0.625 0.625 185.00 131.00 115.63 81.88 65.50 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/18/13 JH Review of file materials regarding School District records 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/24/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24. 50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/31/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges Preparation of memorandum to file 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/01/13 CEM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/06/13 HBK Review of correspondence from D. Hodges 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

02/06/13 CEM Review of records 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.8 8 73.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/07/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding police charges and status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 129.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

02/07/13 CEM Telephone communications with client Review of records Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges 0.625 0.625 275.00 245.00 171.88 153.13 122.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/12/13 CEM Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding discipline 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/21/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding discipline issues 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 2 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/01/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding IEP meeting and need for evaluation Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEP meeting 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/02/13 CEM Review of file materials Update case status Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding IEP Meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/04/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding IEP and evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/08/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding job and services 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/14/13 CEM Preparation of File Review 0.500 0.500 275.00 245.00 13 7.50 122.50 98.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/15/13 JH Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/15/13 CEM Interoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding scheduling Initial client meeting 0.750 0.750 275.00 245.00 206.25 183.75 147 .00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/15/13 HBK Review of records Preparation for, travel to and attendance at initial client meeting 3.625 3.250 430.00 430.00 1,558.75 1,397.50 1,118.00 Hours reduced (travel);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

03/25/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to client regarding representation 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30 .63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/26/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews and M. Buczkowski regarding representation and Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

03/26/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to client regarding representation Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and M. Buczkowski regarding same and Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/27/13 MM Preparation of File Chronology 0.375 0.375 140.00 116.00 52.50 43.50 34.80 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 3 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/03/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process Request 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

04/05/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Hobson, regarding update and Due Process Complaint Review of records Preparation of Due Process Complaint 5.125 5.125 275.00 245.00 1,409.38 1,255.63 1,004.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/08/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

04/08/13 MM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/08/13 CEM Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding representation Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/09/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process Request 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

04/09/13 MM Review of correspondence from client 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/09/13 JH Review of file materials regarding representation and Releases 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 26.20 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/09/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding representation and Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding meeting and representation 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/15/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Hobson regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/22/13 CEM Review and revise Due Process Complaint 0.500 0.500 275.00 245.00 137.50 122.50 98.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 4 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/23/13 CEM Review of sample Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/25/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

04/25/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint format 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/26/13 CEM Interoffice communication with M. Hobson regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/30/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 245.00 68.75 61.25 49.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/05/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/06/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding records 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/06/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/07/13 CEM Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski and F. Hobson regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/08/13 HBK Interoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, C. McAndrews and M. Buczkowski regarding Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/08/13 CEM Review and revise Due Process Complaint Interoffice communication withD.C. McAndrews, H.B. KonklerGoldsmith and M. Buczkowski regarding same 1.625 1.625 275.00 245.00 446.88 398.13 318.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/09/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/09/13 CEM Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint Review and revise same 1.500 1.500 275.00 245.00 412.50 367.50 294 .00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 5 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/10/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/13/13 CEM 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 M. Buczkowski regarding meeting 1.375 1.375 275.00 245.00 378.13 336.88 269.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/14/13 CEM 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 Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding meeting 0.875 0.875 275.00 245.00 240.63 214.3 8 171.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/15/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/16/13 MM Telephone communication with D. Hodges 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/16/13 CEM Preparation of Due Process Complaint Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding meeting Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding same 0.875 0.875 275.00 245.00 240.63 214.38 1 71.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/17/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding job placement 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/17/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding MDT meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 6 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/20/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding MDT meeting 0.125 0.125 275.00 245.00 34.38 30.63 24.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/21/13 CEM Review of correspondences from Student Hearing Office regarding Due Process Hearing Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 245.00 103.13 91.88 73.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/22/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process Telephone communication with counsel 0.750 0.750 430.00 430.00 322.50 322.50 258.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/22/13 MM Telephone communications with client 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/22/13 CEM 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 Hearing Officer and M. Washington 2.250 2.250 275.00 245.00 618.75 551.25 441.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/23/13 MM Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/23/13 JH Review of file materials regarding Due Process 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 13.10 Rate reduced to 85% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 7 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/23/13 CEM 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 Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey 0.875 0.875 275.00 245.00 240.63 214.38 171 .50 Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/24/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/28/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Resolution Session 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/28/13 CEM 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 Interoffice communication with M. Hobson regarding School District negotiations 1.625 1.125 275.00 245.00 446.88 275.63 220. 50 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/29/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Resolution Session 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 8 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/29/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Resolution Session and Records Request Telephone communication with C. Ahaghotu regarding Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.625 0.000 275.00 245.00 171.88 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/31/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Resolution Meeting Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.500 0.000 275.00 245.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (12-13); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/03/13 CEM Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding Resolution Session 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/04/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding resolution Review of correspondence from DCPS 0.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 215.00 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

06/04/13 CEM Review of correspondence from C. Ahaghotu regarding Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahagotu regarding same Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Resolution Session Review of correspondence from D. Defino regarding same 0.875 0.000 275.00 250.00 240.63 0.00 0.0 0 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/05/13 CEM Review of correspondence from C. Ahaghotu regarding Resolution Session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding same Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding Resolution Session Review of correspondence from counsel 0.500 0.000 275.00 250.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 9 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/06/13 CEM Interoffice communications with M. Buczkowski regarding Resolution Session Telephone communication with client regarding same 0.500 0.000 275.00 250.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/06/13 MM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.000 140.00 116.00 17.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

06/07/13 CEM Review of case law regarding compensatory education 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/13/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/14/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Review of Scheduling Order Review of file materials Update case status Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding Resolution Session and Due Process Hearing 0.500 0.250 275.00 250.00 137.50 62.50 50.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 10 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/17/13 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondencesto Hearing Officer regarding prehearing conference 2.125 1.125 275.00 250.00 584.38 281.25 225.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/18/13 CEM 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 Hearing Officer regarding prehearing 1.125 1.130 275.00 250.00 309.38 282.50 226.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/19/13 HBK Review of correspondence from DCPS 0.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 215.00 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 11 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/19/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding records Telephone communication with counsel, M. Washington, regarding records and Resolution Meeting 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/20/13 CEM Review of correspondence from C. Ahaghotu regarding resolution session Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahaghotu regarding same Preparation of correspondence to counsel Facilitate resolution session 0.750 0.000 275.00 250.00 206.25 0.0 0 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/21/13 CEM 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 client regarding settlement Preparation of Motion to Admit Pro Hac Vice 2.500 2.000 275.00 250.00 687.50 500.00 400.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/22/13 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Interoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/23/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25. 00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/24/13 HBK Review of file materials/Interoffice communication regarding Due Process Hearing Preparation for same 1.750 1.750 430.00 430.00 752.50 752.50 602.0 0 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 12 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/24/13 CEM 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 Resolution Session Preparation of pro hac vice Motion 1.625 1.500 275.00 250.00 446.88 375.00 300.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/25/13 HBK Pre-Hearing Conference Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer 1.250 1.250 430.00 430.00 537.50 537.50 430.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

06/25/13 CEM 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 counsel Telephone communication with client 4.125 4.000 275.00 250.00 1,168.75 1,000.00 800.00 Hours reduced (travel); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/26/13 CEM Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to C. Ahagotu regarding resolution session 0.500 0.000 275.00 250.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 13 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/28/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding settlement Telephone communication with counsel, M. Washington, regarding same 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

06/28/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmithregarding settlement and FiveDay Notices Telephone communication with counsel Review of Prehearing Order Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of correspondence to client 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/30/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding resolution session Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation for hearing 2.500 2.000 275.00 250.00 687.50 500.00 40 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/01/13 MM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/01/13 HBK Preparation for, travel to and attendance at Resolution Session Review of correspondence from counsel Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer 6.000 0.250 430.00 430.00 2,580.00 107.50 86.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 14 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

07/01/13 CEM 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 Resolution Session Preparation of Motion to Withdraw 6.250 3.000 275.00 250.00 1,718.75 750.00 600.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/02/13 MM Preparation and filing of FiveDay Notices 0.500 0.500 140.00 116.00 70.00 58.00 46.40 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/02/13 DW Preparation of file contents 4.000 4.000 130.00 116.00 5 20.00 464.00 371.20 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/02/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding withdrawal of Due Process Complaint and Five-Day Notices Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding same 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250. 00 200.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/03/13 HBK Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 15 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

07/03/13 CEM Review of Order of Withdrawal Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding resolution session 0.250 0.130 275.00 250.00 68.75 32.50 26.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/09/13 CEM 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 T. Sterling regarding S/L evaluation 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/10/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing and IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.0 0 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

07/10/13 CEM 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 to National Speech regarding IEE 1.375 1.375 275.00 250.00 378.13 343.75 275.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/15/13 CEM Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/22/13 CEM Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125. 00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 16 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

07/30/13 CEM Telephone communication with Conaboy & Assoicates regarding S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/02/13 CEM Compilation and review of records for evaluator Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250. 00 200.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/06/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 4 3.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

08/06/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/11/13 CEM Preparation of IEE Request 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 17 1.88 156.25 125.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/12/13 CEM Preparation of IEE Request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34 .38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/14/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE request 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

08/14/13 DW Preparation of records for conference call 0.125 0.125 130.00 116.00 16.25 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/14/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/16/13 JTN Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 240.00 240.00 30.00 30.00 24.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

08/16/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 4 3.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

08/16/13 MM Revise and file IEE request 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35 .00 29.00 23.20 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/16/13 CEM Preparation of IEE request Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding same Preparation of correspondence to counsel Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 17 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

08/26/13 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding IEE 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 1 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/03/13 CEM Review of correspondence from K. Marcus regarding IEE request Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding client communication Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding client contact 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/04/13 HBK Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding client contact and IEE request 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.0 0 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

09/04/13 CEM 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 regarding client contact and IEE request 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/05/13 CEM Interoffice communication with R. Paul regarding client contact information Review of correspondence from D. Hodges regarding client communication Preparation of correspondence to D. Hodges regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50. 00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/09/13 CEM Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding contact with client 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 18 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

09/12/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding client communication 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/13/13 MM Interoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding S/L evaluation 0.125 0.125 140.00 116.00 17.50 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/13/13 CEM Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding client communication, IEE Request and S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/16/13 MM Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.250 140.00 116.00 35.00 29.00 23.20 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/24/13 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding client communication 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/26/13 CEM Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/02/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/08/13 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 4 3.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

10/08/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to K. Marcus and M. Washington regarding IEE Review of correspondence from M. Washington regarding IEE Request Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/09/13 CEM 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 Review of file materials K. Conaboy regarding same 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125 .00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 19 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

10/10/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding FBA Telephone communications with client regarding evaluation Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington, regarding same Review of correspondence from counsel regarding evaluation 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187. 50 150.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/14/13 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE request 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

10/14/13 CEM Interoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/23/13 CEM Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/24/13 CEM Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding compensatory education 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/28/13 CEM Review of correspondence from Conaboy & Assoc. regarding S/L IEE Preparation of correspondence to Conaboy & Assoc. regarding

same Interoffice communication with M. Buczkowski regarding S/L IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/30/13 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 4 3.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

10/30/13 CEM Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Research regarding IEE providers Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Iseman regarding IEE 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 1 00.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/01/13 CEM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 20 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

11/05/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation and school Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding contact with client Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding S/L evaluation 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/08/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding IEE and behaviors Preparation of correspondence to K. Marcus regarding FBA and IEE Review of records regarding current school year 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/12/13 CEM Telephone communications with D. Hodges regarding contact information 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/13/13 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding communication with client and IEE Preparation of correspondence to K. Marcus regarding IEE Request 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/20/13 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

11/20/13 CEM Review of S/L IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same Preparation of correspondence to K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187. 50 150.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/21/13 CEM Review of correspondence from K. Conaboy regarding S/L IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/25/13 PW Preparation of Due Process Complaint 2.000 2.000 130.00 116.00 260.00 232.00 185.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/25/13 CEM Intraoffice communication with P. Wedderburn regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

12/06/13 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 21 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

12/16/13 CEM Preparation of Due Process Complaint 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/08/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

01/08/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding private evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/10/14 HBK Review of records 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107. 50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

01/10/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with P. Wedderburn regarding evaluations 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/11/14 CEM Review of evaluations Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/17/14 CEM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31. 25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/20/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

01/20/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/24/14 CEM Preparation of Due Process Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/27/14 CEM Preparation of Due Process Complaint 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/28/14 HMH Review and revise Due Process Complaint 0.375 0.375 380.00 360.00 142.50 135.00 108.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/29/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H. Hulse regarding Due Process Complaint revisions Telephone communications with client regarding Due Process Complaint, progress, IEP Meeting and FBA Preparation of Due Process Complaint 1.375 1.375 275.00 250.00 378.13 343.75 275.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 22 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/03/14 CEM Telephone communication with DCPS Scheduler regarding RSM Review of correspondence from SHO regarding Hearing Officer Appointment Notice Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding Initial Order 0.375 0.125 275.00 250.00 103.13 31.25 25. 00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/04/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client Preparation of correspondence to client 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/05/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding scheduling resolution meeting Telephone communication with T. Ingram regarding scheduling resolution meeting 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/06/14 CEM Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with T. Ingram regarding scheduling resolution meeting 0.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/07/14 CEM Telephone communication with T. Ingram regarding scheduling RSM 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/08/14 CEM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/10/14 CEM 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 T. Ingram regarding RSM Preparation of correspondence to T. Ingram regarding same 0.500 0.130 275.00 250.00 137.50 32.50 26 .00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 23 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/12/14 CEM Review of DCPS Response to Due Process Complaint Review of text messages from teacher to parent regarding behavior 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/13/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to T. Ingram regarding RSM Telephone communication with client regarding same 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/14/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding RSM Telephone communication with client regarding same Preparation of correspondence to client regarding RSM 0.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/18/14 DD Telephone communication with client regarding Resolution Meeting 0.125 0.000 145.00 116.00 18.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

02/18/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding RSM Telephone communication with D. Hodges regarding Due Process Complaint and discipline 0.250 0.130 275.00 250.00 68.75 32.50 26.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/19/14 DD Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client 0.125 0.000 145.00 116.00 18.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

02/19/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding scheduling resolution meeting Review of correspondence from T. Ingram regarding scheduling Due Process Hearing Preparation of correspondence to T. Ingram regarding same 0.375 0.125 275.00 250.00 103.13 31.25 25 .00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/20/14 DD Telephone communications with client regarding Resolution Meeting 0.250 0.000 145.00 116.00 36.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

02/20/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding RSM Telephone communication with client regarding same and IEP Meeting Preparation of correspondence to T. Ingram regarding RSM 0.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 24 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/21/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding RSM and IEP 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/26/14 DD Telephone communication with DCPS resolution scheduler to confirm 2/27 session 0.125 0.000 145.00 116.00 18.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM);Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

02/26/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding resolution meeting Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.000 275.00 250.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/27/14 CEM Telephone communication with M. Smith regarding RSM Telephone communication with client Travel to and attendance at RSM 2.375 0.000 275.00 250.00 653.13 0 .00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

02/28/14 CEM 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 H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding attorneys fees 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 1 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/01/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to M. Smith regarding request for FBA and increase in IEE rate 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125. 00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/05/14 CEM Review of correspondence from DCPS regarding RSM 0.125 0.000 275.00 250.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/06/14 CEM Review of correspondences from Hearing Officer Massey regarding Prehearing Conference Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding

same Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer regarding Prehearing Conference 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100. 00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 25 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/07/14 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding Prehearing Conference Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer Massey regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/11/14 CEM Review of correspondence from Hearing Officer regarding Prehearing Conference Notice Preparation of correspondence regarding Prehearing Conference Order 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/12/14 CEM Prehearing Conference Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer Massey and L. Smalls regarding witnesses Review of correspondence from counsel 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/13/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to colleagues regarding IEE rates 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62. 50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/14/14 CEM 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 Process Hearing and withdrawal of Due Process Complaint 2.125 2.130 275.00 250.00 584.38 532.50 4 26.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 26 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/18/14 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/19/14 CEM 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 H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/21/14 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding suspension 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

03/21/14 CEM Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding suspension 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/24/14 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Motion to Dismiss 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

03/24/14 CEM 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 regarding Motion to Withdraw Preparation of same 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 27 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/25/14 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Permission to Evaluate 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

03/25/14 DD Submission of Motion 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14. 50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/25/14 CEM 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 regarding Permission to Evaluate Review of Order 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 250.00 200.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/26/14 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding FBA Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Permission to Evaluate Telephone communication with client regarding suspension 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/27/14 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding suspension Telephone communication with client regarding same Preparation of correspondence to client regarding Consent to Evaluate 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

03/28/14 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding suspensions 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

03/28/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding suspensions 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/07/14 CEM Telephone communication with Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 28 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/08/14 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/09/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding behavior 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

04/09/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding behavior 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/10/14 CEM Review of correspondences from counsel, L. Smalls, regarding IEE and behavior incidents 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 5 0.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/11/14 CEM Review of discipline referral forms Telephone communication with L. Levisohn regarding evaluation Telephone communication with client 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/15/14 JTN Review of correspondence to School District regarding behavioral issues 0.250 0.250 240.00 240.00 60.00 60.00 48.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

04/15/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding payment for same Preparation of correspondences to counsel, L. Smalls, regarding behavior 1.375 1.375 275.00 250.00 378.13 343.75 275.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/20/14 CEM Research regarding behavior assessment and intervention 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 50.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/21/14 CEM Research regarding behavior assessment and intervention 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/23/14 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding evaluation 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 86.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 29 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/23/14 CEM Review of correspondences from L. Levisohn regarding evaluation Preparation of correspondence to L. Levisohn regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 250.00 68.75 62.50 5 0.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/24/14 CEM Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding IEE Review of correspondence from D. Topolosky regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to L. Levisohn and D. Topolosky regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/28/14 CEM 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 Intraoffice communication with D. Dubose regarding IEE records 1.000 1.000 275.00 250.00 275.00 2 50.00 200.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

04/29/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE and behavior incidents 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 30 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/29/14 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn regarding same 1.125 1.125 275.00 250.00 309.38 281.2 5 225.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/01/14 DD Preparation of file materials for Evaluator review 0.500 0.500 145.00 116.00 72.50 58.00 46.40 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/06/14 DD Preparation of file materials and correspondence to Evaluators 1.000 1.000 145.00 116.00 145.00 116. 00 92.80 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/06/14 CEM Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/07/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding rate approval 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 31 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/07/14 CEM 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 A. McLaughlin regarding School District contact 0.625 0.625 275.00 250.00 171.88 156.25 125.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/08/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/12/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE rate 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/15/14 DD Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/15/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding cause of action, evaluations and behavior 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75 .00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/23/14 CEM Telephone communications with client regarding testing and transportation 0.500 0.500 275.00 250.00 137.50 125.00 100.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/27/14 CEM Telephone communications with client regarding transportation to IEE 0.875 0.875 275.00 250.00 240.63 218.75 175.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/28/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 250.00 34.38 31.25 25.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/29/14 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

05/29/14 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding evaluation issues 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 45.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 32 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/29/14 CEM Telephone communications with client regarding transportation Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and D.C. McAndrews regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 250.00 103.13 93.75 75.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

05/30/14 CEM Research regarding transportation Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same 0.750 0.750 275.00 250.00 206.25 187.50 150. 00 Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/02/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client Investigate transportation Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client Telephone communication with UPS regarding lost package 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.75 255.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/03/14 CEM Preparation for, travel to and attendance at client meeting regarding transportation Telephone communications with A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same 1.375 0.875 275.00 255.00 378.13 223. 13 178.50 Hours reduced (travel); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/09/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding IEE forms 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/10/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding placement 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 2 5.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/11/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding placement 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

06/11/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding placement 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/16/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/17/14 FA Correspondence with client regarding Dr. Levisohn evaluation forms 0.375 0.375 145.00 116.00 54.38 43.50 34.80 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 33 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/17/14 CEM 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 H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 1.375 1.375 275.00 255.00 378.13 350.63 280.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/18/14 CEM Telephone communications with client regarding IEE transportation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/19/14 CEM Arrange transportation Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with Taxi company regarding transportation Preparation of correspondence to client 1.625 1.625 275.00 255.00 446.88 414.38 331.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

06/25/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE and observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/01/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63. 75 51.00 Rates reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/02/14 FA Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/02/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding ESY schedule 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rates reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/03/14 FA Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 34 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

07/03/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding ESY observation Correspondence with A. McLaughlin regarding same Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/08/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding placement and ESY 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/09/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding ESY observation Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/10/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client Preparation of correspondence to client 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/11/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding services 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

07/11/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding ESY Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding ESY observation Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding services 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 102.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/15/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding new contact information 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/16/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/17/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding UPS 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/18/14 FA Preparation of file materials 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/21/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding new contact information Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 35 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

07/23/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEEs 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

07/24/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEEs 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rates reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

07/31/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding placement 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 5 1.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/01/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding residency 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/05/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to L. Levisohn regarding evaluation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 3 1.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/06/14 CEM 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 H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding enrollment 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 102.0 0 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/07/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/08/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding enrollment 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/26/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 4 3.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

08/26/14 CEM Review of IEE Report Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 36 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

08/27/14 CEM 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 A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 153.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/28/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

08/28/14 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to client 1.875 1.875 275.00 255.00 515.63 478.13 382.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

08/29/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Review of correspondence from client 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 102.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/02/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding transportation Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/04/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin regarding same Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.875 0.875 275.00 255.00 240.63 223.13 178.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 37 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

09/08/14 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to client regarding IEP Meeting 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255. 00 204.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/09/14 FA Telephone communication with client regarding Releases 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11 .60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/10/14 FA Telephone communication with client regarding Records Release Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same 0.375 0.375 145.00 116.00 54.38 43.50 34.80 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/16/14 CEM Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/19/14 CEM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding Releases 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/22/14 FA Preparation of file materials regarding Release 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 14.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/24/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding 30 Day Review 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31. 88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/24/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding 30 Day Review 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31. 88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

09/25/14 CEM Telephone communication with DCPS Special Education Compliance Office regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding observation 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 38 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

09/28/14 CEM Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding observation Preparation of correspondence to A. McLaughlin regarding same Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding observation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/01/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding observation 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 43.00 Fee reduced 20% (Pre11/6/14)

10/01/14 CEM 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 H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding same 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 204.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/07/14 CEM Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25 .50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/08/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint Preparation of correspondence to L. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 51 .00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/09/14 CEM Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25 .50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/15/14 CEM Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76. 50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/17/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/21/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with E. Gilmore regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25. 50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

10/27/14 FA Preparation of records 0.125 0.125 145.00 116.00 18.13 1 4.50 11.60 Rate reduced to 75% USAO; Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 39 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

10/27/14 CEM Review of correspondences from D. Topolosky regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with F. Abdul regarding same Preparation of correspondence to D. Topolosky regarding IEE 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 76.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/03/14 CEM Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 25.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15); Fee reduced by 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

11/06/14 MC Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

11/06/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Clarke regarding communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31 .88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/14/14 CEM Review of file materials regarding Due Process Complaint 3.125 3.125 275.00 255.00 859.38 796.88 796.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/17/14 CEM Telephone communication with client Preparation of Due Process Complaint Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 2.625 2.625 275.00 255.00 721.88 669.38 669.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/18/14 CEM 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 client regarding same 0.875 0.875 275.00 255.00 240.63 223.13 223. 13 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/24/14 CEM Preparation of correspondence to client regarding IEP 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/25/14 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding conference call Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/25/14 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

11/26/14 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding McKinney-Vento 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 1 27.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/03/14 CEM Research regarding MckinneyVento Act 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 40 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

12/04/14 CEM Preparation of Due Process Complaint 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/05/14 JTN Review and revise Due Process Complaint 0.375 0.375 240.00 240.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 -

12/11/14 JCL Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 230.00 230.00 28.75 28.75 28.75 -

12/11/14 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

12/11/14 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/16/14 MC Preparation of Due Process Complaint for filing 1.000 1.000 185.00 131.00 185.00 131.00 131.0 0 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

12/16/14 CEM Preparation of Due Process Complaint 1.375 1.375 275.00 255.00 378.13 350.63 350.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/18/14 CEM Review of file materials regarding Hearing Officer assignment 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/19/14 CEM 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 Review of correspondence from E. Castillo regarding RSM 0.375 0.500 275.00 255.00 103.13 127.50 127.50 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/22/14 CEM Review of initial Order and Notice of Prehearing Conference Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and D.C. McAndrews regarding scheduling 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

12/31/14 CEM 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. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding regarding same 0.250 0.000 275.00 255.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/02/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 1 68.75 168.75 168.75 -

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 41 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/02/15 CEM 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 Process Hearing 1.125 1.125 275.00 255.00 309.38 286.88 286.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/05/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Due Process 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/05/15 MC Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/05/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy regarding Prehearing Conference 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31 .88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/06/15 DCM Review of correspondences from Hearing Officer and Notices Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation for Due Process Review of records 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 -

01/06/15 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding file contents 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 42 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/06/15 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to client 1.250 1.125 275.00 255.00 343.75 286.88 286.88 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/07/15 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Resolution Meeting 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM)

01/07/15 CEM 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 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 1 12.50 112.50 112.50 -

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 43 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/08/15 CEM 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 L. Levisohn regarding same 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/12/15 DCM Review of records Preparation for Due Process 1.750 1.750 450.00 450.00 787.50 787.5 0 787.50 -

01/12/15 CEM Preparation for Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/13/15 MC Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/13/15 JH Review of file materials regarding school record and 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/13/15 CEM 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 L. Levisohn regarding Due Process Hearing 1.625 1.500 275.00 255.00 446.88 382.50 382.50 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/14/15 DCM 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 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/14/15 CEM 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 Preparation of memorandum to file regarding same 1.875 1.500 275.00 255.00 515.63 382.50 382.50 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/15/15 DCM Preparation of Motion for Continuance Review of correspondence from Dr. Levisohn Preparation of correspondence to Dr. Levisohn 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

01/15/15 MC Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Lindamood Bell testing Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/15/15 CEM 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 M. Clarke regarding evaluation 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 19 1.25 191.25 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/16/15 DCM Preparation of correspondence to School District regarding IEP Review of correspondence from counsel regarding transportation Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/16/15 CEM 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 counsel regarding transportation 2.375 2.375 275.00 255.00 653.13 605.63 605.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/19/15 CEM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Lindamood Bell Telephone communications with client regarding transportation and housing Preparation of Motion to Correct Prehearing Conference Order 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.7 5 318.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/20/15 DCM Review of Hearing Officer's Order Preparation of Motion to Correct Order Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/20/15 CEM 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 same 1.125 1.125 275.00 255.00 309.38 286.88 286.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/21/15 DCM Telephone communications with counsel, M. Washington and C. McAndrews 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

01/21/15 CEM Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer regarding Due Process Hearing Review of file materials 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63. 75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/22/15 DCM Review of correspondence from 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/22/15 CEM 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 evaluation Preparation of Intake for Reading Evaluation 2.750 2.500 275.00 255.00 756.25 637.50 637.50 Hours reduced (travel); Rate reduced to Laffey (13-14); Fee reduced 20% (Pre-11/6/14)

01/23/15 CEM 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 D. Douglas regarding same 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/26/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding witnesses 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/27/15 DCM Review of records Preparation for hearing 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 33 7.50 -

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 49 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/27/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing Telephone communication with client regarding same 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/27/15 CEM 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 A. Sauer regarding same 2.000 2.000 275.00 255.00 550.00 510.00 51 0.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

01/28/15 HBK Intraoffice communication regarding Due Process Hearing and residence 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

01/28/15 AS Intraoffice communications with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith, D.C. McAndrews and C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing and residence 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/28/15 CEM 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 and residence 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 50 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/29/15 AS Telephone communications with client regarding placement Telephone communication with Fairfax County Coordinated Services Planning regarding enrollment 0.625 0.625 155.00 116.00 96.88 72.50 72.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/29/15 CEM 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 client regarding transportation 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 3 18.75 318.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/03/15 CEM Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding client communication 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/04/15 AS Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/04/15 CEM Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding communication with client, transportation 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/05/15 AS Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/05/15 CEM Review of phone message regarding transportation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31. 88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/06/15 AS Telephone communication with client regarding transportation 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14 .50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 51 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/06/15 CEM 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 Review of correspondence from client regarding IEP Meeting 0.750 0.130 275.00 255.00 206.25 33.1 5 33.15 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/06/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Invitation to IEP and Resolution Meeting 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to 85% USAO

02/07/15 DCM Review of records 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337. 50 337.50 -

02/07/15 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to counsel 1.250 0.000 275.00 255.00 343.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/08/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding records 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/09/15 AS Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/09/15 CEM 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 Preparation of correspondence to counsel 1.500 0.000 275.00 255.00 412.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/09/15 DCM Preparation for resolution session Telephone communication with client Review of records Review of correspondence from 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/10/15 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding procedure 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

02/10/15 DCM Review of correspondences from counsel, M. Washington Review of correspondence from client Preparation of correspondence to client Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 -

02/10/15 AS Telephone communication with client regarding status 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.5 0 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/10/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Custody Order 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.3 8 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

02/10/15 CEM 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 regarding procedure 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/11/15 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington Preparation of correspondence to counsel Correspondence with client 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

02/11/15 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington, regarding records Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same, IEP and Resolution Meeting 0.375 0.125 275.00 255.00 103.13 31.88 31.88 Hours reduced (RSM); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/12/15 DCM Preparation for, travel to and attendance at Resolution Meeting Review of records 10.000 0.000 450.00 450.00 4,500.00 0.00 0.00 Ho urs reduced (RSM)

02/13/15 DCM Correspondence with client Review of records Preparation of witness sheets for deposition 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

02/13/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/14/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding reading, IEP Meeting and Due Process Hearing 1.250 0.500 275.00 255.00 343.75 127.50 127.50 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/16/15 CEM Review of correspondence from colleague regarding homeless services Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same 0.125 0.000 275.00 255.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

02/18/15 DCM Telephone communication with client Telephone communication with N. Gregerson 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

02/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding OSSE
contacts Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding reading intervention Review of correspondence fromcolleague regarding McKinneyVento Preparation of correspondence to colleague regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95 .63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/19/15 DCM 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 N. Gregorson 2.250 2.250 450.00 450.00 1,012.50 1,012.50 1,012.50

-

02/19/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/20/15 DCM Review of correspondence from N. Gregerson Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregerson Review of correspondence from L. Levisohn Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/20/15 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

02/20/15 CEM 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 Review of DCPS report on IEE 0.875 0.875 275.00 255.00 240.63 223. 13 223.13 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/21/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process Hearing 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

02/22/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process Review of records Preparation of Exhibits Preparation of witness sheets Preparation of correspondence to Experts 8.250 8.250 450.00 450.00 3,712.50 3,712.50 3,712.50 -

02/22/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Due Process Hearing 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/23/15 DCM Telephone communication with Dr. L. Levisohn Preparation of witness sheets 1.375 1.375 450.00 450.00 618.75 618 .75 618.75 -

02/23/15 CEM 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 D.C. McAndrews regarding same 1.125 0.875 275.00 255.00 309.38 223.13 223.13 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/24/15 DCM 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 possible testimony 3.125 3.125 450.00 450.00 1,406.25 1,406.25 1,4 06.25 -

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 55 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/24/15 AS Telephone communication with client Hearing travel arrangements Research regarding same 1.125 1.125 155.00 116.00 174.38 130.50 13 0.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/24/15 JH Intraoffice communication regarding Due Process Exhibits Telephone communication with client 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

02/24/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hearing 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/25/15 DCM Preparation of Due Process letter Preparation of Exhibits Preparation of experts Telephone communication with L. Levisohn Telephone communications with D. Douglas Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin 3.875 3.875 450.00 450.00 1,743.75 1,743.75 1,743.75 -

02/25/15 JH Initial Preparation of Exhibits Preparation of Exhibits 1.250 1.250 185.00 131.00 231.25 163.75 16 3.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

02/26/15 AS Telephone communication with client regarding Hearing 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14. 50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/26/15 CEM 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 Review of correspondence from A. McLaughlin regarding same 0.875 0.500 275.00 255.00 240.63 127. 50 127.50 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

02/27/15 DCM Review of School District Motion to Dismiss 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

02/27/15 CEM Review of Five-Day Notice Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, K. Conaboy and Evaluators regarding Due Process Hearing and Exhibits 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127. 50 127.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 56 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/01/15 CEM 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 Motion 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 127.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/02/15 DCM Preparation of Reply to Motion to Dismiss 0.875 0.875 450.00 450.00 393.75 393.75 393.75 -

03/02/15 JH Finalization of Due Process Exhibit Books 1.000 1.000 185.00 131.00 185.00 131.00 131.00 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/02/15 CEM 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 Dismiss 1.250 1.250 275.00 255.00 343.75 318.75 318.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/03/15 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, M. Washington 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -
03/03/15 JH Correspondence with counsel 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23 .13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/03/15 CEM 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 Disclosures 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 191.25 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 57 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/04/15 DCM 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 Hearing Officer 2.250 2.250 450.00 450.00 1,012.50 1,012.50 1,012. 50 -

03/04/15 AS Telephone communication with OSSE Transportation regarding location/address Telephone communication with client regarding housing, attendance and transportation 0.750 0.750 155.00 116.00 116.25 87. 00 87.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/04/15 CEM 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 Disclosures 1.375 1.375 275.00 255.00 378.13 350.63 350.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/05/15 DCM 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 Preparation for Due Process 1.375 1.375 450.00 450.00 618.75 618.7 5 618.75 -

03/05/15 AS Telephone communication with client regarding assistance and Hearing 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 58 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/05/15 CEM 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 Exhibits 0.750 0.750 275.00 255.00 206.25 191.25 191.25 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/06/15 DCM Telephone communication with A. McLaughlin Preparation of correspondence to Hearing Officer 1.500 1.500 450.00 450.00 675.00 675.00 675.00 -

03/06/15 JH Update case status 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/06/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding objections to disclosures 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31 .88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/08/15 DCM Preparation for Due Process Hearing Communications with clients Preparation of Opening Preparation of witness sheets Review of recordsPreparation for crossexamination Research legal issues underlying claims for relief 8.500 8.500 450.00 450.00 3,825.00 3,825.00 3,82 5.00 -

03/08/15 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Exhibits Preparation of correspondence to D. Douglas 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/08/15 CEM 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 Process Hearing 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255.00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 59 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/09/15 DCM Preparation for, travel to and attendance at Due Process Hearing Preparation for second day of Hearing 9.500 9.500 450.00 450.00 4,275.00 4,275.00 4,275.00 -

03/09/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding resolution and Due Process Complaint 0.500 0.500 275.00 255.00 137.50 127.50 127.50 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/10/15 DCM Preparation for second day of hearing 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 -

03/10/15 JH Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/11/15 AS Telephone communication with client regarding new housing and transportation 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/11/15 CEM Review of correspondence from M. Acosta regarding telephone call with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/12/15 DCM Preparation for and attendance at Due Process Hearing Post-hearing research 13.125 13.125 450.00 450.00 5,906.25 5,906.2 5 5,906.25 -

03/16/15 JCL Research regarding Due Process issues 0.375 0.375 230.00 230.00 86.25 86.25 86.25 -

03/16/15 DCM Research regarding Post-Hearing submission Preparation of same Review of School District cases and statements regarding cases 2.250 2.250 450.00 450.00 1,012.50 1,012.50 1,012.50 -

03/16/15 JH Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/16/15 EG Preparation of materials for PostHearing submission 2.625 2.625 185.00 131.00 485.63 343.88 343.88 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/16/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding case law support 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/17/15 DCM Review of correspondence from OSSE Preparation of correspondence to OSSE Preparation of correspondence to counsel, M. Washington 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225 .00 -

03/17/15 AS Review of correspondence from client regarding Hearing transcript 0.750 0.750 155.00 116.00 116.25 87.00 87.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/17/15 JH Review of correspondence from ODR Preparation of correspondence to ODR Telephone communication with client 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 60 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/17/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding transcript Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same and transportation 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95. 63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/18/15 AS Preparation of Hearing Transcript Request 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding transcript Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding transcript 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/22/15 DCM Review of correspondence from client Preparation of correspondence to client 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

03/24/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/25/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding transcript 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.8 8 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/28/15 CEM Review of correspondence from ODR regarding Hearing Officer Decision Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/30/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Hearing Officer Decision Preparation of appeal Preparation of fee materials 1.750 1.750 450.00 450.00 787.50 787. 50 787.50 -

03/30/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Due Process transcript 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 1 6.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/30/15 CEM 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 to S. Cogdell regarding same 1.625 1.625 275.00 255.00 446.88 414. 38 414.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

03/31/15 JH Review of file materials regarding IEP Amendment Form 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/01/15 HBK Review Due Process decision 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 1 07.50 107.50 107.50 -

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 61 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/01/15 DCM Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client Preparation of Appeal materials 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 2 81.25 281.25 -

04/02/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Decision Review of same Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding conference call 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -

04/02/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hearing Officer Decision Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding intraoffice meeting Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Amendment 0.375 0.250 275.00 255.00 103.13 63.75 63.75 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

04/03/15 DCM Review IEP/ESY request Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding response 0.250 0.000 450.00 450.00 112.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

04/03/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Amendment 0.250 0.000 275.00 255.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

04/06/15 DCM Telephone communication with client 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

04/06/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Amendment 0.125 0.000 275.00 255.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

04/07/15 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Due Process Decision 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

04/07/15 MEG Review of Decision Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding 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 -

04/07/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/07/15 CEM Intraoffice communication withD.C. McAndrews, H.B. KonklerGoldsmith and M. Gehring regarding appeal 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

04/13/15 CEM Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to S. Cogdell regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31 .88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 62 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/21/15 AS Review of file regarding transcript 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

04/22/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding case law 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

04/22/15 DCM Research regarding recent cases regarding specificity in IEP 0.125 0.000 450.00 450.00 56.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

04/25/15 JH Deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/28/15 CEM Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell, K. Conaboy and D.C. McAndrews Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Hearing Officer Decision implementation 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/04/15 MEG Review of file, Note 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 -

05/05/15 AS Telephone communication with client regarding services 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14 .50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/05/15 JH Review of file materials regarding emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/05/15 CEM 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 compensatory education 1.000 1.000 275.00 255.00 275.00 255.00 255 .00 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/06/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding compensatory education programs 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

05/06/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, J. Hardy, and D.C. McAndrews regarding billing 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/06/15 CEM 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 reimbursement 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 63 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/07/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding services 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/07/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/08/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/08/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and A. Sauer regarding Due Process Hearing 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/11/15 MEG Preparation of Complaint Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same 10.250 10.250 430.00 430.00 4,407.50 4,407.50 4,407.50 -

05/11/15 AS Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/11/15 EB Preparation of N.T. binders Review of correspondence from counsel 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/11/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding program and compensatory education Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Complaint 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63. 75 63.75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/14/15 CEM Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell regarding implementation 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/17/15 CEM Telephone communication with client regarding compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding contact with client Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Telephone communication with client regarding compensatory education 0.375 0.375 275.00 255.00 103.13 95.63 95.63 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/19/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/19/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A.Sauer regarding compensatory education and programming 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31.88 31 .88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/20/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Complaint 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/20/15 DCM Preparation of Federal Court Complaint 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -

05/21/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with E. Bissell regarding Complaint Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -

05/21/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding contacts for School District implementation Preparation of Federal Court Complaint 1.000 1.000 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 -

05/21/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Preparation of correspondence to client 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/21/15 EB Review and revise Complaint 0.750 0.750 155.00 116.00 11 6.25 87.00 87.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/21/15 JH Review of email 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16 .38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/21/15 CEM 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 appeal 0.625 0.625 275.00 255.00 171.88 159.38 159.38 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/22/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/23/15 JH Review of file materials regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/27/15 MEG Update case status Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107 .50 107.50 -

05/27/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 255.00 34.38 31. 88 31.88 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/28/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy and C. McAndrews regarding status 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 56.2 5 56.25 56.25 -

05/28/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding appeal 0.250 0.250 275.00 255.00 68.75 63.75 63 .75 Rate reduced to Laffey (14-15)

05/29/15 MEG Review and revise Complaint 0.625 0.625 430.00 430.00 2 68.75 268.75 268.75 -

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 65 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/01/15 DCM Preparation of Complaint 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225. 00 225.00 225.00 -

06/02/15 EB Preparation of CV for D.C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

06/03/15 CEM Preparation of fee materials Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding communication with client 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -

06/03/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -

06/05/15 CEM Review of correspondence from S. Cogdell regarding compensatory education Review of file materials regarding same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding expert 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -

06/05/15 DCM Telephone communication with counsel, V. Porter 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50

-

06/08/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding Hearing Officer Decision implementation Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding communication with client 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68 .75 -

06/09/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding filing 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53 .75 -

06/09/15 DCM Preparation of Complaint Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding same 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112. 50 112.50 -

06/09/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

06/09/15 JH Preparation of Complaint documents Finalize Complaint 1.000 1.000 185.00 131.00 185.00 131.00 131.00 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

06/10/15 CEM Intraoffice communication regarding Federal Complaint Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Summons and Judge Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/10/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

06/10/15 DCM Preparation of materials to accompany Complaint 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

06/10/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

06/10/15 JH Telephone communication with R. Dawson, District Court Federal District Court Finalize Notice Preparation of Certificate of Service Intraoffice communication 0.500 0.500 185.00 131.00 92.50 65.50 65 .50 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

06/12/15 CEM Review of correspondence from J. Michney regarding compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

06/14/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding negotiations and Complaint 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -

06/15/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

06/15/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding service 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 5 3.75 -

06/15/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Complaint Preparation of correspondence to counsel, L. George 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

06/16/15 CEM Review of Complaint Preparation of correspondence to J. Michney regarding compensatory education 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137 .50 -

06/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

06/18/15 DCM Telephone communications with counsel, L. George Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Crawford 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.2 5 -

06/18/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

06/19/15 DCM Research regarding compensatory education 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112 .50 -

06/20/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

06/30/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

06/30/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

07/01/15 AS Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

07/02/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding transcript 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.3 8 34.38 - 07/02/15 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.7 5 53.75 -

07/06/15 CEM Review of correspondence from A. Crawford regarding reimbursement Intraoffice communication with E. Gilmore regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68 .75 -

07/06/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding implementation issues 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112. 50 -

07/07/15 CEM Preparation of correspondence to A. Crawford regarding reimbursement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

07/08/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

07/15/15 DCM Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Crawford, regarding IEE reimbursement and global 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

07/16/15 CEM 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 invoice 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 -

07/16/15 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Crawford Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

07/16/15 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding service Preparation of correspondence to counsel Preparation of services documents 1.375 1.375 185.00 131.00 254.38 180.13 180.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

07/27/15 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, L. George, regarding service Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

07/27/15 MEG Review of correspondence from counsel Review of email regarding service 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

07/29/15 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, L. George regarding service 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

07/30/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding service 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

08/03/15 CEM Review of memorandum 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

08/05/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding service of process Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding call with client 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -

08/05/15 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, L. Gease Research regarding service of process 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -

08/05/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

08/06/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

08/07/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34 .38 -

08/07/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding service and settlement 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112 .50 -

08/10/15 CEM 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 process 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -

08/10/15 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Hearing Officer Decision 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53. 75 -

08/10/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding service Research regarding same 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 16 1.25 -

08/10/15 DCM Research Preparation of documents for personal services 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

08/10/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, J. Hardy and M. Gehring 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

08/10/15 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding service Preparation of correspondence to client 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 70 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

08/11/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding service of process Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Review of correspondence to process server 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -

08/11/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy and D.C. McAndrews regarding service 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

08/11/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

08/11/15 JH Review of file materials regarding service Preparation of email 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

08/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding reimbursement 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

08/20/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding service 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 6 8.75 -

08/20/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status Research 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -

08/20/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding service of process 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50

-

08/23/15 JH Review of file materials regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

08/24/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

08/25/15 CEM Review of file materials regarding service of process Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding service 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -

08/25/15 AS Preparation of correspondence to Office of Attorney General Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.500 0.500 155.00 116.00 77.50 58.00 58.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

08/28/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding negotiation Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding service 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 6 8.75 -

08/28/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement, service of Complaint 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

08/28/15 JH Review of file materials regarding emails and Notification of Service 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.7 5 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

08/31/15 CEM Review of correspondences from J. Michney regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to J. Michney regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68 .75 -

08/31/15 JH Review of file materials 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

08/31/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews, J. Hardy 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.5 0 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

09/02/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding proof of service 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

09/03/15 CEM Telephone communication with counsel 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

09/03/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Affidavits Finalize same 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

09/04/15 CEM Review of correspondence from Court regarding Answer 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

09/04/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. McAndrews regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 5 3.75 -

09/04/15 DCM Review of correspondence from Clerk's Office 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

09/04/15 JH Review of file materials regarding service 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

09/11/15 MEG Preparation of correspondences to counsel Review of correspondences from counsel Review of Complaint 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 -

09/14/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding counsel 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 3 4.38 -

09/15/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding counseling Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Complaint and communication with School District Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding counsel 0.625 0.625 275.00 275.00 171.88 171.88 171.88 -

09/15/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Preparation of correspondence to counsel Amended Complaint Telephone communication with 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

09/15/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

09/15/15 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Amended Complaint Finalize same 0.375 0.375 185.00 131.00 69.38 49.13 49.13 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

09/16/15 MEG Review of correspondence from counsel Preparation of correspondence to counsel Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Complaint 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215. 00 215.00 -

09/16/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Amended Complaint and Entry of Appearance Finalize same Preparation of Certificate of Service 0.500 0.500 185.00 131.00 92.50 65.50 65.50 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

09/17/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding counseling and LRE 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

09/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Complaint 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34. 38 34.38 -

09/18/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.7 5 53.75 -

09/24/15 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice 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 53.7 5 53.75 -

09/24/15 MJC Intraoffice communication regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

09/24/15 AB Intraoffice communication regarding status 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

09/30/15 CEM Research regarding statute of limitations Intraoffice communication regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

09/30/15 DCM Research regarding statute of limitations and compensatory education Preparation of materials regarding same 1.250 1.250 450.00 450.00 562.50 562.50 562.50 -

10/01/15 CEM Research regarding resolution Telephone communication with A. Finkhousen regarding case law and resolution Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

10/01/15 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Review of C. McAndrews email to A. Finkhousen 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -

10/02/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Answer and resolution Review of correspondence from counsel Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

10/02/15 MEG 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 counsel 1.625 1.625 430.00 430.00 698.75 698.75 698.75 -

10/02/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement issues Review Answer of Defendant 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

10/02/15 JH Preparation of email to Chambers Review of emails regarding conference call 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO 10/05/15 MEG Review of Court Orde r 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

10/05/15 JH Review of file materials regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

10/09/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Amended Answer 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

10/09/15 MEG Review of correspondences from counsel Preparation of correspondences to counsel Review of Answer Update case status 0.875 0.875 430.00 430.00 376.25 376.25 376.25

-

10/11/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Order and deadlines 0.625 0.625 185.00 131.00 115.63 81. 88 81.88 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

10/15/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

10/16/15 CEM Telephone communication with counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

10/20/15 MEG Review of Court Notice Review of Amended Complaint 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.5 0 107.50 -

10/20/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Motion for Leave to File Answer to Amended Complaint 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

10/21/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Amended Answer 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

10/21/15 DCM Review of Defendant's Motion to File Amended Pleadings 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112 .50 -

10/22/15 CEM Preparation of correspondence to DCPS regarding Compliance Case Manager Preparation of correspondence to A. Anokye regarding conference call Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 1 03.13 -

10/22/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding status 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56. 25 56.25 -

10/23/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith, A. Sauer regarding negotiations Telephone communication with A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68. 75 68.75 -

10/23/15 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding negotiations 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

10/23/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

10/24/15 CEM Preparation of correspondence to A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34. 38 34.38 -

10/26/15 CEM Review of correspondence from A. Anokye regarding conference call 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

10/26/15 DCM Research regarding statute of limitations 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -

10/27/15 CEM Preparation of correspondence to A. Anokye regarding conference 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

11/02/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding meeting Telephone communication with A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68. 75 68.75 -

11/02/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/03/15 CEM Telephone communication with A. Anokye regarding resolution 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34. 38 34.38 -

11/03/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/04/15 CEM Telephone communication with A. Anokye regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding behavior 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

11/04/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/05/15 CEM Telephone communication with counsel, M. Washington, regarding resolution Preparation of correspondence to counsel regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

11/05/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/06/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/10/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding communication with client 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34 .38 -

11/10/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/13/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding implementation issues 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112. 50 -

11/13/15 AS Telephone communication with client Preparation of correspondence to client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 76 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

11/13/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding negotiations Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 0.500 0.250 275.00 275.00 137.50 68 .75 68.75 Hours reduced (IEP)

11/16/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/16/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding behavior meeting Preparation of correspondence to client regarding same 0.375 0.000 275.00 275.00 103.13 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

11/17/15 DCM Review of behavior reports Preparation for meeting 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 11 2.50 -

11/17/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Review of correspondence from client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

11/17/15 CEM 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 Meeting 3.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 962.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable) 11/18/15 MEG Review of Court Orde r 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

11/18/15 JH Review of file materials regarding Administrative Record 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16 .38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

11/19/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding implementation issues 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25

-

11/19/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Meeting Review of correspondence from colleague regarding transition Preparation of correspondence to colleague regarding same 0.375 0.000 275.00 275.00 103.13 0.00 0.0 0 Hours reduced (IEP)

11/23/15 CEM Review of correspondence from colleague regarding LRE Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

11/24/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding appeal 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

11/24/15 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

11/30/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 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 68.7 5 68.75 68.75 -

12/02/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding negotiations 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -

12/14/15 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

12/14/15 CEM Review of file materials regarding Wechsler testing Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEE 0.375 0.125 275.00 275.00 103.13 34.38 34.3 8 Hours reduced (IEE)

12/15/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

12/15/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

12/16/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding client communication Preparation of correspondence to A. Allen-King regarding compensatory education 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103 .13 -

12/16/15 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

12/17/15 CEM Telephone communication with A. King regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding

same Research regarding reading instruction 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 -

12/17/15 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

12/18/15 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding negotiations 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

12/18/15 MEG Telephone communications with counsel Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status 0.625 0.625 430.00 430.00 268.75 268.75 268.75 -

12/21/15 MEG Review of file materials Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status Preparation of records 1.375 1.375 430.00 430.00 591.25 591.25 591 .25 -

12/26/15 JH Review of file materials regarding deadline 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

12/28/15 CEM Telephone communication with A. Allen-King regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to A. Allen-King regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

01/03/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment Review of transcripts Review of Exhibits 6.875 6.875 430.00 430.00 2,956.25 2,956.25 2,9 56.25 -

01/04/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding brief Review of Motion for Extension 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68. 75 68.75 -

01/04/16 MEG 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 J. Hardy regarding filing 8.625 8.625 430.00 430.00 3,708.75 3,708 .75 3,708.75 -

01/04/16 DCM Preparation of Motion on Administrative Record 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25

-

01/04/16 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Motion for Extension Preparation of Certificate of Service Preparation of correspondence to Judge Huvelle 0.625 0.625 185.00 131.00 115.63 81.88 81.88 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 79 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/05/16 MEG Telephone communication with counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of Court Order Preparation of Motion for Judgment 6.375 6.375 430.00 430.00 2,741.25 2,741.25 2,741.25 -

01/06/16 CEM Telephone communication with counsel, A. Allen-King, regarding resolution Review of file materials regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

01/06/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment 7.750 7.750 430.00 430.00 3,332.50 3,332.50 3,332.50 -

01/06/16 JH Review of file materials regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/07/16 CEM Preparation of correspondence to 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 53.7 5 53.75 -

01/08/16 DCM Review of correspondence from client 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

01/13/16 CEM 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 counsel regarding same 1.125 1.125 275.00 275.00 309.38 309.38 309 .38 -

01/13/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment 2.125 2.125 430.00 430.00 913.75 913.75 913.75 -

01/13/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/13/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/14/16 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Allen-King, regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to counsel regarding same 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

01/14/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment Review of email to A. Allarking 6.125 6.125 430.00 430.00 2,633.75 2,633.75 2,633.75 -

01/14/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding implementation and compensatory education 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

01/15/16 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding IEP Review of correspondence from A. Allen-King regarding settlement Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and M. Gehring regarding same 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103 .13 -

01/15/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. McAndrews regarding status 2.250 2.250 430.00 430.00 967.50 967.50 967.50 -

01/15/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/16/16 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Allen-King Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

01/17/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication withD.C. McAndrews, H.B. KonklerGoldsmith, C. McAndrews and M. Connolly regarding Brief 6.250 6.250 430.00 430.00 2,687.50 2,6 87.50 2,687.50 -

01/18/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring and D.C. McAndrews regarding Memorandum of Law 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

01/18/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Brief 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

01/18/16 MJC Review and revise Brief in Support of Motion for Summary 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/18/16 DCM Preparation of Memorandum for District Court 1.000 1.000 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 -

01/18/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/19/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding case law 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.7 5 68.75 -

01/19/16 MEG Additional research Review and revise Motion for Judgment 6.750 6.750 430.00 430.00 2,902.50 2,902.50 2,902.50 -

01/19/16 DCM Preparation of Memorandum of 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 -

01/20/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for 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 Brie f 1.375 1.375 275.00 275.00 378.13 378.13 378.13 -

01/21/16 MEG Preparation of Motion for Judgment Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Brief Intraoffice communication with A. Butler regarding tables 5.750 5.750 430.00 430.00 2,472.50 2,47 2.50 2,472.50 -

01/21/16 DCM Preparation of memorandum 1.375 1.375 450.00 450.00 618 .75 618.75 618.75 -

01/21/16 AB Preparation of exhibits 1.000 1.000 155.00 116.00 155.00 116.00 116.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/22/16 MEG Preparation of Motion papers File same Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Motion papers 5.750 5.750 430.00 430.00 2,472.50 2,472.50 2,472.50 -

01/22/16 DCM Preparation of Memorandum of Law 1.500 1.500 450.00 450.00 675.00 675.00 675.00 -

01/22/16 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding Motion for Summary Judgment Preparation of correspondence to Judge Huvelle Preparation of Certificate of Service Finalize Motion Review of Exhibits 1.125 1.125 185.00 131.00 208.13 147.38 147.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/25/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding appeal 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

01/27/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

01/27/16 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

01/27/16 AS Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/28/16 HBK Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement issues 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

01/28/16 MJC Intraoffice communication regarding Case Status - Motion filed, awaiting response 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 1 07.50 -

01/28/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement issues 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

01/28/16 JH Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement issues 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/29/16 AB Intraoffice communication regarding Motion and Response 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.0 0 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

01/29/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

01/29/16 CEM Review of file materials regarding evaluations and IEP Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same and IEP Meeting 3.875 0.000 275.00 275.00 1,065.63 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

01/29/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. McAndrews regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

01/31/16 CEM Review of file materials regarding IEP Meeting Telephone communication with client regarding same 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Ho urs reduced (IEP)

02/01/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/01/16 CEM Telephone communication with client Preparation of notes to file Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Due Process Hearing Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 0.875 0.500 275.00 275.00 240.63 13 7.50 137.50 Hours reduced (IEP)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 83 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/01/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and C. McAndrews regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

02/02/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/02/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.0 0 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

02/04/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client regarding conference call 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 1 4.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/04/16 CEM Telephone communications with client regarding IEP Meeting Intraoffice communication with M. Acosta and A. Sauer regarding conference call Telephone communication with counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding settlement 0.625 0.500 275.00 275.00 171.88 137.50 137.5 0 Hours reduced (IEP)

02/05/16 CEM Review of file materials regarding IEP Meeting 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 H ours reduced (IEP)

02/06/16 CEM 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 meeting regarding IEP 1.750 0.000 275.00 275.00 481.25 0.00 0.00 H ours reduced (IEP)

02/08/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/08/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting Preparation of correspondence to counsel Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding IEP Meeting 0.750 0.000 275.00 275.00 206.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced ( IEP)

02/09/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 84 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/09/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding settlement Preparation of correspondence to counsel Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP meeting Telephone communication with counsel 0.625 0.500 275.00 275.00 171.88 137.50 137.50 Hours reduc ed (IEP)

02/11/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

02/11/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/11/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting, exclusion, IEP and field trip 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.0 0 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP)

02/12/16 CEM 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 counsel regarding same 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206 .25 -

02/12/16 MEG Review of correspondences from counsel, A. Finkhousen Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding same 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.2 5 161.25 -

02/12/16 DCM Review of multiple emails of A. Finkhousen, C. McAndrews Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168.75 -

02/15/16 JH Review of file materials regarding deadlines 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

02/17/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 85 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/17/16 CEM 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 regarding mental health 0.875 0.125 275.00 275.00 240.63 34.38 34. 38 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

02/18/16 CEM Telephone communications with client regarding mental health and residence 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

02/19/16 MEG Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence to counsel Update case status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25

-

02/19/16 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -

02/19/16 CEM 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 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/22/16 CEM 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 educational needs 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 -

02/22/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

02/22/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

02/23/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 H ours reduced (IEP)

02/24/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Meeting and IEP 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (I EP)

02/24/16 DCM Review Brief of DCPS regarding Judgment on Administrative Record Review IEP or ER 1.000 0.750 450.00 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 Ho urs reduced (IEP)

02/24/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% 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 -

02/27/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding alerts 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.0 0 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 -

02/29/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding settlement Review of correspondence from client Intraoffice communication with 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

02/29/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding IEP and FBA Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/01/16 MEG Preparation of Response Brief Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Connolly, H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith and C. McAndrews regarding Brief Intraoffice communication with A. Butler regarding Brief 7.625 7.625 430.00 430.00 3,278.75 3,278 .75 3,278.75 -

03/01/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding same 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0 .00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/02/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215 .00 - 03/02/16 MJC Review and revise Respons e 1.375 1.375 430.00 430.00 591.25 591.25 591.25 -

03/02/16 CEM 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 education 0.875 0.375 275.00 275.00 240.63 103.13 103.13 Hours red uced (IEP)

03/02/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client regarding IEP 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/03/16 MEG Preparation of Response Brief Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding compensatory education and cases 9.000 9.000 430.00 430.00 3,870.00 3,870.00 3,870.00 -

03/03/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding same 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0 .00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 88 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/03/16 CEM 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 H. Cohen regarding IEE 4.625 3.500 275.00 275.00 1,271.88 962.50 9 62.50 Hours reduced (IEE)

03/03/16 DCM Preparation of Response Brief Review of IEP and IEE 1.750 1.380 450.00 450.00 787.50 621.00 621. 00 Hours reduced (IEP)

03/04/16 MJC Review of final response to Motion for Judgment 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25 -

03/04/16 DCM Preparation of Response Brief Preparation of materials for Evaluator 0.750 0.750 450.00 450.00 337.50 337.50 337.50 -

03/04/16 JH 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 regarding same 1.250 1.250 185.00 131.00 231.25 163.75 163.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/04/16 CEM Review and revise Brief Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/04/16 MEG 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 Brief 8.375 8.000 430.00 430.00 3,601.25 3,440.00 3,440.00 Hours r educed (IEP)

03/07/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

03/07/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/08/16 MEG Review of C. McAndrews email to A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

03/08/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding evaluation Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/08/16 CEM 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 compensatory education 1.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 309.38 34.38 34.3 8 Hours reduced (IEP)

03/09/16 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding settlement 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

03/09/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEP and FBA 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/09/16 CEM 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 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/10/16 CEM Review of correspondence from School District regarding medical referral 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

03/14/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/15/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Brief 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53. 75 -

03/15/16 JH Review of file materials regarding Summary Judgment Motion and Department of Revenue check 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 32.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/15/16 CEM 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 Complaint 0.750 0.130 275.00 275.00 206.25 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

03/16/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/16/16 CEM 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 speech services 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

03/17/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation Research regarding transportation and discipline Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding Defendant's Opposition Brief 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103.13 103.13 - 03/17/16 MEG Review of Reply Brie f 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

03/17/16 JH Review of file materials regarding School District's Reply 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 91 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/17/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding IEP Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEP); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/18/16 DCM Research regarding cases for possible Reply Brief Order Oral Argument 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

03/18/16 AS Review of correspondence from client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/18/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation and behavior Review of file materials regarding transportation and discipline 0.500 0.000 275.00 275.00 137.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

03/21/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding behavior and evaluation 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

03/21/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/22/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding evaluation 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

03/22/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

03/23/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Oral Argument 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

03/23/16 DCM Review of School District Reply Memorandum Research, preparation for possible oral argument Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding use of compensatory education 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281 .25 -

03/23/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 92 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/23/16 CEM 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 client regarding evaluation 2.000 0.130 275.00 275.00 550.00 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE)

03/24/16 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107 .50 107.50 -

03/24/16 AS Telephone communication with client regarding evaluation Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 131.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 85% USAO

03/24/16 CEM 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. McAndrews regarding appeal 1.750 0.130 275.00 275.00 481.25 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEP)

03/24/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding status 0.250 0.000 430.00 430.00 107.50 0.00 0 .00 Hours reduced (IEP)

03/28/16 MEG Preparation of Request for Hearing Preparation of correspondence to counsel 1.250 1.250 430.00 430.00 537.50 537.50 537.50 -

03/28/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 93 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

03/28/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding same Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring regarding Hearing 0.500 0.130 275.00 275.00 137.50 35.7 5 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE)

03/28/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.500 0.000 155.00 116.00 77.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduc ed (IEE) 03/30/16 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.7 5 53.75 -

03/30/16 CEM Review of correspondence from client regarding evaluation 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0 .00 Hours reduced (Evaluation)

04/01/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Motion 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

04/01/16 DCM Preparation of Motion for Oral Argument Review Answer of School District 0.625 0.625 450.00 450.00 281.25 281.25 281.25 -

04/01/16 JH Review of file materials regarding Motion for Oral Argument 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/04/16 CEM Review and edit Motion Intraoffice communication with M. Connolly regarding Motion 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 103. 13 103.13 -

04/04/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Motion 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.7 5 53.75 -

04/04/16 MJC Review and revise Motion for Oral Argument 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107.50 -

04/05/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding correspondence to Court 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.3 8 -

04/05/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy and E. Gilmore regarding admission Research regarding same Finalize Motion for Oral Argument 0.750 0.750 430.00 430.00 322.50 322.50 322.50 -

04/05/16 JH Review of file materials regarding Motion for Oral Argument Finalize same Preparation of Certificate of Service Preparation of correspondence to Clerk, USDC 0.875 0.875 185.00 131.00 161.88 114.63 114.63 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/05/16 DCM Review of correspondence from client regarding implementation issues 0.250 0.000 450.00 450.00 112.50 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

04/06/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding evaluations 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (Evaluation); Rate reduced to 75% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 94 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/06/16 CEM Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding same 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/06/16 CEM Review of correspondences from H. Cohen regarding IEE Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding same Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding IEE 0.250 0.000 275.00 275.00 68.75 0.00 0.00 H ours reduced (IEE)

04/07/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Federal Court and referral 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

04/07/16 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Federal Court and referral 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

04/10/16 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

04/11/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding status Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.250 0.250 430.00 430.00 107.50 107.50 107 .50 -

04/11/16 JH Review of file materials regarding Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Hearing 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/12/16 DCM Review of Defendant's Opposition to Oral Argument 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

04/12/16 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding compensatory education Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding same 0.250 0.130 275.00 275.00 68.75 35.75 35.7 5 Hours reduced (IEE)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 95 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/13/16 CEM 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 counsel 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -

04/13/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding compensatory education transportation 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56.25 56.25 -

04/14/16 CEM Intraoffice communication withM. Gehring, H.B. KonklerGoldsmith 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 N. Gregorson regarding same 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.2 5 206.25 -

04/14/16 DCM Review of recent case law 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112 .50 112.50 112.50 -

04/14/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Review of correspondence from counsel 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

04/14/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding new
matter Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 215.00 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (noncompensable)

04/15/16 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Federal Court and compensatory 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/15/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with J. Hardy regarding authority Preparation of Notice Research regarding procedure 0.875 0.875 430.00 430.00 376.25 376. 25 376.25 -

04/15/16 DCM Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding use of compensatory education Review of Lindamood Bell report 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50 -

04/15/16 JH 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 Finalize Notice 1.125 1.125 185.00 131.00 208.13 147.38 147.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/15/16 AS Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 Hours reduc ed (IEE)

04/15/16 CEM 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 H. Cohen regarding same 0.250 0.130 275.00 275.00 68.75 35.75 35.7 5 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/18/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and J. Hardy regarding status Review of response 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161.25 161.25

-

04/18/16 DCM Review of correspondence from J. Fields regarding compliance 0.125 0.125 450.00 450.00 56.25 56. 25 56.25 -

04/18/16 CEM Review of correspondence from J. Fields regarding compensatory education Intraoffice communication with M. Gehring and J. Hardy regarding same Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE 0.250 0.130 275.00 275.00 68.75 35.75 35.75 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/20/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 97 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/20/16 CEM Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Review of independent report Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding same and IEE 1.000 0.000 275.00 275.00 275.00 0.00 0.00 Hours redu ced (IEE)

04/21/16 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding Federal Court 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

04/21/16 MEG Review of email to A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

04/21/16 JH Review of emails regarding compensatory education fund 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 16.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

04/21/16 CEM 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 H. Cohen regarding IEE 1.250 0.750 275.00 275.00 343.75 206.25 206 .25 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/21/16 DCM Review of materials regarding possible IEE Review of correspondences from counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.625 0.000 450.00 450.00 281.25 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/22/16 MEG Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.75 53.75 -

04/22/16 DCM Review of correspondence from 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

04/22/16 CEM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen, regarding compensatory education Telephone communication with H. Cohen regarding IEE Review of file materials regarding same 0.375 0.125 275.00 275.00 103.13 34.38 34.38 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/24/16 CEM Review of correspondence from H. Cohen regarding IEE Preparation of correspondence to H. Cohen regarding same 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/25/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding use of compensatory education 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112 .50 -

04/25/16 CEM 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 same 1.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 378.13 103.13 103.13 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/26/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding IEE 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours redu ced (IEE)

04/26/16 HBK Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding IEE 0.125 0.000 430.00 430.00 53.75 0.00 0. 00 Hours reduced (IEE)

04/29/16 CEM Review of correspondences from A. Anokye regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondences to A. Anokye regarding same 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.5 0 137.50 -

04/29/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.7 5 53.75 -

04/29/16 DCM Review of School District's compensatory education plan Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Anokye 0.250 0.250 450.00 450.00 112.50 112.50 112.50

-

04/29/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/02/16 CEM Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding tutoring Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/03/16 CEM 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, regarding Motion 0.750 0.750 275.00 275.00 206.25 206.25 206.25 -

05/03/16 MEG Review of correspondence from A. Anokye Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status 0.375 0.375 430.00 430.00 161.25 161 .25 161.25 -

05/03/16 DCM 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 Authorization 0.625 0.630 450.00 450.00 281.25 283.50 283.50 -

05/03/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/04/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and M. Gehring regarding compensatory education Preparation of correspondence to N. Gregorson regarding same 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

05/04/16 MEG Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and D.C. McAndrews regarding status Preparation of correspondence to 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/04/16 DCM Review of correspondence from counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence from N. Gregorson regarding compensatory education 0.375 0.375 450.00 450.00 168.75 168.75 168 .75 -

05/04/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/05/16 CEM 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 Stipulation 0.500 0.500 275.00 275.00 137.50 137.50 137.50 -

05/05/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews regarding Stipulation Review of Stipulation Preparation of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen Review of correspondence from counsel 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 -

05/05/16 AS Review of correspondence from counsel Review of file materials Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews Telephone communication with client 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/05/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO 05/06/16 MEG Update case status 0.125 0.125 430.00 430.00 53.75 53.7 5 53.75 -

05/06/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/09/16 CEM 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 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/10/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding compensatory education 0.250 0.250 275.00 275.00 68.75 68.75 68.75 -

05/10/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduc ed (IEE)

05/11/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding transportation 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34.38 34.38 -

05/11/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/12/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/16/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with L. O'Connell regarding transfer 0.375 0.375 275.00 275.00 103.13 1 03.13 103.13 -

05/17/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/17/16 CEM 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 colleague regarding IEE 1.625 0.250 275.00 275.00 446.88 68.75 68. 75 Hours reduced (IEE)

05/17/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Review of IEE Request 0.250 0.000 430.00 430.00 107.50 0.00 0.00 H ours reduced (IEE)

05/17/16 DCM Review of materials from school psychologist Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding IEE Request and compliance issues 0.375 0.125 450.00 450.00 168.75 56. 25 56.25 Hours reduced (IEE)

05/18/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with A. Butler regarding Release Intraoffice communication with 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) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/18/16 AS Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy Preparation of correspondence to counsel 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/18/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.125 185.00 131.00 23.13 16.38 1 6.38 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/18/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, A. Sauer and M. Gehring regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 Hours reduced (I EE)

05/18/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding IEE Request Research recent cases regarding statute of limitations and compensatory education 0.625 0.250 450.00 450.00 281.25 112.50 112 .50 Hours reduced (IEE)

05/19/16 AS Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy Preparation of correspondence to client 0.250 0.250 155.00 116.00 38.75 29.00 29.00 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/19/16 JH Review of emails 0.250 0.250 185.00 131.00 46.25 32.75 3 2.75 Rate reduced to 85% USAO

05/19/16 CEM Review of correspondence from J. Fields regarding IEE Request 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0. 00 0.00 Hours reduced (IEE)

05/19/16 MEG Update case status Review of correspondence from J. Fields 0.375 0.125 430.00 430.00 161.25 53.75 53.75 Hours reduc ed (IEE)

05/23/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Gehring and J. Hardy regarding Decision 0.125 0.125 275.00 275.00 34.38 34 .38 34.38 -

05/23/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with A. Sauer regarding status Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, C. McAndrews, M. Connolly and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith regarding Decision Review of Decision 0.500 0.500 430.00 430.00 215.00 215.00 215.00

-

05/23/16 DCM Review Opinion and Order of Court 0.500 0.500 450.00 450.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 -

05/23/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy and M. Gehring 0.125 0.125 155.00 116.00 19.38 14.50 14.50 Rate reduced to 75% USAO

05/24/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, M. Gehring and J. Hardy regarding Decision 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0. 00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 103 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/24/16 MEG Intraoffice communication withD.C. McAndrews, H.B. KonklerGoldsmith, 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 T. Baker regarding invoice 1.375 0.000 430.00 430.00 591.25 0.00 0 .00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/24/16 DCM Review of file materials/Intraoffice communication regarding compliance and remand issues 0.125 0.000 450.00 450.00 56.25 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/24/16 AS Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy, M. Gehring, M. Connolly and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/24/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0. 00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/25/16 MEG Research regarding Fee Petition 0.375 0.000 430.00 430. 00 161.25 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/25/16 DCM Review of correspondence from J. Fields regarding IEE 0.125 0.000 450.00 450.00 56.25 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/25/16 AS Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and J. Hardy 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0 .00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/26/16 AS Intraoffice communication with A. Butler 0.125 0.000 155.00 116.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/27/16 CEM Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding compensatory education 0.125 0.000 275.00 275.00 34.38 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/27/16 MEG Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews and A. Sauer regarding status 0.375 0.000 430.00 430.00 161.25 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/27/16 AS Telephone communication with client Intraoffice communication with D.C. McAndrews, J. Hardy, M. Gehring, A. Hagan and H.B. Konkler-Goldsmith 0.250 0.000 155.00 116.00 38.75 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

05/28/16 JH Review of emails 0.125 0.000 185.00 131.00 23.13 0.00 0. 00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

## Attachment to Mem. Op. [ECF No. 30] Page 104 of 104 Civil Action No. 15

‐ 851 (ESH) Date Initials Work Performed Hours Claimed Hours Credited Rate Claimed Rate Credited Fee Claim e d Fee Credited Adjusted Award Notes

05/31/16 MEG Research regarding attorneys' fees Preparation of Motion for Attorneys' Fees Intraoffice communication with C. McAndrews regarding status Intraoffice communication with A. Butler regarding Motion 2.250 0.000 430.00 430.00 967.50 0.00 0 .00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

06/01/16 JH Preparation of email to J. Fields Review of emails 0.250 0.000 185.00 131.00 46.25 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

06/02/16 MEG Review of correspondence to counsel, A. Finkhousen Preparation of Fee Petition
papers Intraoffice communication with T. Baker regarding invoice Review of emails between client and Case Manager 7.500 0.000 430.00 430.00 3,225.00 0.00 0.00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

06/03/16 MEG 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 Research regarding Rules 7.875 0.000 430.00 430.00 3,386.25 0.00 0 .00 No fee awarded (Postjudgment)

Total Hours Claimed Total Hours Credited Total Hours * Rate Claimed Total Hours * Rate Credited Total Fees (before reductions) Fee Awarded after 15% reduction for complexity and 5% reduction for block billing

TOTALS 618.000 503.700 212081.51 168473.03 161903.98 $129,523.18