They have attached to their motion contemporaneous time records reflecting time involved by Honorable David D. O'Donnell, Honorable H. S. Spragins, and Honorable Dion Shanley in this litigation. The court has examined the time records submitted by plaintiffs and finds that the amount of time devoted to the various phases of this lawsuit was reasonable and necessary as adjusted by the court in order for plaintiffs to achieve a reconfigurement of the supervisor districts, consummation of the settlement agreement, and obtaining court approval of the remedial plan. Defendants counter that plaintiffs only prevailed on one of the three separate aspects of this case, and that defendants should not be required to pay attorneys' fees for nonprevailing efforts by the plaintiffs. In any event, this court finds that the time devoted to the unsuccessful claims is compensable because they share a common core of facts with the successful claims. Defendants also challenge plaintiffs' fee request with a suggestion that plaintiffs' counsels' time should be divided into three categories according to the nature of the work involved.
Plaintiffs now stipulate to defendants' three-part categorization with certain exceptions.
Administrative Activities which include travel time, clerical work, and the compila- tion of facts and statistics. The court has examined affidavits of attorneys submitted by both parties as to a reasonable hourly fee in this community and general area. The amounts indicated above are reasonable fees and expenses in light of the nature and complexity of novel constitutional issues in this voting rights case, the level of plaintiffs' counsels' experience and expertise in this complex and rapidly developing area of the law, and in light of the prevailing market rates for similar services in this judicial district. A judgment will be entered accordingly. This 11th day of May, 1999.