Opinion ID: 2982668
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insufficiently Detailed Descriptions

Text: Attorneys who seek fees have an obligation to “maintain billing time records that are sufficiently detailed to enable courts to review the reasonableness of the hours expended.” Wooldridge, 898 F.2d at 1177. The party seeking fees has “the burden of providing for the court’s perusal a particularized billing record.” Perotti v. Seiter, 935 F.2d 761, 764 (6th Cir. 1991). Although Plaintiffs’ counsel “is not required to record in great detail how every minute of his [or her] time was expended,” “at least counsel should identify the general subject matter of 12 Smith et al. v. ServiceMaster Holding Corp., et al., No. 14-5481 [] time expenditures, Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12); see also Wooldridge, 898 F.2d at 1177; Cleveland Area Bd. of Realtors v. City of Euclid, 965 F. Supp. 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ohio 1997). This court has held that “[in] obtaining the number of hours expended on the case, the district court must conclude that the party seeking the award has sufficiently documented its claim.” United Slate, Local 307 v. G & M Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 502 (6th Cir. 1984). Where the documentation is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Because the district court in the instant case failed to make any findings regarding the sufficiency of the explanations provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel, we remand.