Opinion ID: 156986
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hours Billed in Conference and Conducting Background Research

Text: 36 The district court ordered  'a general reduction in hours ... to achieve what the court perceives to be a reasonable number,'  Aplts' App. vol. VII, at 2305 (quoting Carter, 36 F.3d at 956), reflected in reductions (1) for time spent in conference since the billing entries did not show how much time was spent in or what happened at conference and (2) for background research because  '[h]ours spent familiarizing oneself with the general area of law should be absorbed in the firm's overhead and not be billed to the client.'  Id. at 2306 (quoting Phelps v. Hamilton, 845 F.Supp. 1465, 1472 (D.Kan.1994), rev'd on other grounds, 76 F.3d 393, 1996 WL 50464 (10th Cir.1996)). 37 The district court was correct in reducing the appellants' hours claimed because of these deficiencies. In Ramos, we noted that time spent reading background material designed to familiarize the attorney with the area of the law would normally be absorbed into a firm's overhead and that, therefore, attempting to charge an adversary with time spent conducting background research is presumptively unreasonable. See Ramos, 713 F.2d at 554. 38 As for the conference billings, counsel for the party claiming the fees has the burden of proving its fee entitlement by presenting the district court time records that show how billed hours were allotted to specific tasks. See id. at 553. Billing entries such as those submitted by plaintiffs, which simply refer to time spent in conference, do not meet these requirements. See Jane L., 61 F.3d at 1510. 39