Bond v. Friendship Public Charter School Board of Trustees

                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



 DANIELLE BOND,
 ex rel. K.M.,

        Plaintiff,
        v.                                                 No. 23-cv-367-ZMF
 FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER
 SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,

        Defendants.


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       Plaintiff, K.M.’s mother, seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after a successful

administrative proceeding against Friendship Public Charter School and its Board of Trustees

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). See Pl.’s Mot. Att’ys’ Fees &

Costs (“Pl.’s Mot.”) 1, ECF No. 11; 

(i)(3)(B)(i). In response, Defendants

(collectively, “FPCS”) cross-move for summary judgment, disputing the reasonableness of the

award sought. See Defs.’ Opp. Pl.’s Mot. & Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot.”) 1, ECF No. 12.

The Court concludes that only some of Plaintiff’s requested fees are reasonable. Therefore, the

Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees in part and denies it in part, and grants FPCS’s

cross-motion for summary judgment in part and denies it in part.




                                                 1
I.     BACKGROUND

       Plaintiff is the parent of K.M., a student with a disability. See Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 16 to Ex. 1,

Interim Hearing Officer Determination (“Interim Determination”) 800, 1 ECF No. 12-3. On March

2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a due process complaint against FPCS before the District of Columbia

Office of the State Superintendent. See Interim Determination at 783. Plaintiff sought relief for

FPCS’s alleged failure to timely determine K.M. eligible for special education and provide

Individual Education Programs (“IEPs”) from 2016 to 2021. See 

       On July 26, 27, and 28, 2022, Plaintiff participated in a due process hearing before an

administrative hearing officer. See 

 at 899–900. On August 2, 2022, the hearing officer issued

an interim determination concluding that FPCS had denied K.M. a free appropriate public

education (“FAPE”) by not evaluating him for special education eligibility in the 2017-2018 school

year and by not developing and implementing appropriate IEPs in the subsequent three school

years. See Interim Determination 799–801. On September 7, 2022, the hearing officer ordered

FPCS to provide 675 hours of compensatory education services to K.M. See Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 26

to Ex. 1, Hearing Officer Determination - Final (“Final Determination”) 906, ECF No. 12-3.

II.    LEGAL STANDARD

       A.      IDEA Attorney’s Fees and Costs

       Under the IDEA, a “court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part

of the costs” to a prevailing party. 

(i)(3)(B)(i). Courts follow a two-step inquiry

to evaluate a petition for attorney’s fees and costs. See Robinson v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2014). First, the court must determine whether the party seeking the fees



1
  This opinion cites to the page numbers that are automatically paginated by the ECF system when
referring to any exhibit attached to either Plaintiff’s or Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 11 and 12)
to avoid any confusion from the nested exhibits therein.


                                                 2
is the “prevailing party.” 

 Second, the court must determine what fees are “reasonable” in terms

of the hours worked and the rate charged. See 

. The party seeking fees “bears the burden

of establishing entitlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours, and justifying the

reasonableness of the rates.” Covington v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.C. Cir.

1995). If the plaintiff meets this burden, the non-moving party must rebut the moving party’s

showing with “equally specific countervailing evidence.” 

. Attorney’s fees are

reasonable when calculated by multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended in

litigation” by a “reasonable hourly rate.” U.F. v. District of Columbia, No. 19-cv-2164, 

, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2020) (quoting Reed v. District of Columbia, 

(D.C. Cir. 2016)).

       B.      IDEA Expert Fees

       While the IDEA does not entitle prevailing parties to recover expert fees, District of

Columbia law does. See 

(7); J.T. v. District of Columbia, Nos. 19-cv-989

& 22-cv-91, 

, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2023). The expert fees must be “reasonable”

and “based on rates prevailing in the community.” 

(7)(B).

III.   DISCUSSION

       As a threshold matter, FPCS does not contest that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. See Mem.

Supp. Defs.’ Mot. 4–22, ECF No. 12-1. The issue becomes what fee award is reasonable.

       A.      Whether Plaintiff’s Proposed Fee Award is Reasonable

                      Requested Hours

       In determining whether the number of hours for which a prevailing party seeks

compensation is reasonable, the court may “consider other cases as a guide,” “reduce or eliminate

excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary billing entries,” including “vague time entries,”




                                                3
and “delete entries that represent preliminary, administrative matters.” Salmeron v. District of

Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The

requested hours may also be unreasonable if Plaintiff unnecessarily protracted the litigation. See

(i)(3)(F)(i).

                                a.   Vague, Excessive, and Duplicative Time Entries

       Attorney’s time entries must provide the court with a “basis to determine with a high degree

of certainty that the hours billed were reasonable.” In re Donovan, 

 (D.C. Cir.

1989). Time entries should “adequately identify the participants, purpose, or content of an

activity.” Dickens v. Friendship-Edison P.C.S., 

 (D.D.C. 2010).

“[I]nadequately detailed” time entries warrant an overall deduction from the fee award. See

Michigan v. EPA, 

 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (applying a 10% reduction to overall

award based on time entries that describe meetings and conferences but are “devoid of any

descriptive rationale for their occurrence”); Dickens, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 124–25 (applying a 10%

reduction to overall award based on vague time entries such as “Conference with parent” and

“Telephone call to DCPS staff”); Clark v. District of Columbia, 

, 158–59

(D.D.C. 2009) (applying a 25% reduction to overall award based on vague time entries such as

“preparation for hearing” and “preparation for school visit”); Coleman v. District of Columbia,

No. 3-cv-126, 

, at *7 (D.D.C. May 3, 2007) (reducing vague time entries such

as “Conference with co-counsel and review of exhibits” by 50%).

       “A review of the billings finds that there are indeed numerous deficient entries.” Michigan

v. EPA, 

; see Pl.’s Mot, Ex. 4 (“Time Entries”) 6–8, 14, 19, ECF No. 11-6.

Examples of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ time entries for which reasonableness cannot be determined

based on the information provided include:




                                                4
 Date              Hours         Rate          Description
 Stephenson Harvey
 7/20/22           1.5           $656.00       Review Cook expert report and law.
 7/19/22           4             $656.00       Review law to prepare for hearing.
 7/18/22           3.5           $656.00       Research and review law.
 6/26/22           0.8           $656.00       Review IDEA and case law.
 6/6/22            0.3           $656.00       Email to opposing counsel.
 4/21/22           0.5           $656.00       Review student records.
 Keith Howard
 8/17/22           0.2           $675.00       Email exchange with opposing counsel
 7/26/22           1.5           $675.00       Prepared Petitioner for hearing
 7/24/22           1.1           $675.00       Meeting with Ms. Bond to prepare for hearing
 7/22/22           1             $675.00       Prepared Petitioner for due process hearing

Time Entries at 6–8, 14, 19. “By this Court’s reckoning roughly 10% of the entries in the invoices

are inadequately described.” Dickens, 

 n.12; see Time Entries at 6–8, 14,

19. “The presence of such entries, ‘devoid of any descriptive rationale for their occurrence,’ make

reasonable a reduction of 10% from the overall award, which will be imposed after other

deductions are made.” Dickens, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 124–25 (quoting Michigan v. EPA, 

).

         “Hours that are not reasonably expended must [also] be excluded from a fee calculation.”

Lopez v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 

 (1983)). “Hours expended may be ‘unreasonable’ if they are

excessive for the type of task performed, [] reflect redundant or overstaffed efforts, or [] are

‘otherwise unnecessary.’” Wilhite v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2015)

(quoting Hensley, 

). Plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating that the number

of hours spent on a particular task is reasonable.” Alfonso v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Holbrook v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C.

2004)).

          The time Plaintiff spent drafting the thirty-page due process complaint—28.9 hours—was

excessive. See Time Entries at 9–10 (15.7 hours), 29 (5.8 hours), 31–32 (7.4 hours). This is

especially true given that plaintiff’s counsel copied many portions of the complaint directly from

K.M.’s educational record. See Administrative Due Process Complaint 12–22, 31–36, Ex. 1 to Ex.

1, ECF No. 12-3. In a similar case, the court found that 20 hours spent on two complaints was

unreasonable where the complaints consisted of “largely [] boilerplate language.” Elec. Priv. Info.

Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

 (D.D.C. 2011). Accordingly, the

Court will reduce the 28.9 hours spent on the complaint by 50%. See id.; Mitchell v. Sec’y of Com.,

No. 82-cv-3020, 

, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 1992) (finding 8 hours spent on drafting

a “cursory” complaint unreasonable); cf. Kelsey v. District of Columbia, 

(D.D.C. 2016) (approving a 50% reduction of time drafting complaint to “appropriately account[]

for the necessity of some portion of that time” where plaintiff did not prevail on the entirety of the

complaint).

          Additionally, the attorneys’ work on the supplemental expert report was “unnecessary

work.” Merrick v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2015). The hearing

officer determined that the expert report was neither helpful nor what the officer had asked for.

See Final Determination at 3–4 (declining to consider the report). Thus, this was an “unnecessary

use of funds and one the Court will not recompense.” Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 

 (D.D.C. 2018) (refusing to reimburse expert fees where expert’s opinion was

unnecessary). Accordingly, the Court will deduct the below time entries from the total award.




                                                  6
   Date      Hours        Rate                              Description
 Stephenson Harvey
 9/8/22      0.25        $656.00 Review Respondent’s objection to supplemental expert report.
 9/4/22      0.8         $656.00 Review supplemental expert report.
 Keith Howard
 9/7/22      0.3         $675.00 Review Respondent’s Objection to Petitioner’s Supplemental
                                 Expert Report on Compensatory Education Plan
 9/5/22      0.1         $675.00 Provided Tribunal copy of supplemental expert report on
                                 compensatory services
 9/4/22      0.9         $675.00 Read and reviewed supplemental report from expert witness
                                 Rachel Reder

Time Entries at 2, 35.

       “[S]ound billing judgment requires that legal matters are ‘appropriately staffed to do the

work required efficiently and without duplicative billing.’” Petties v. District of Columbia, No.

95-cv-148, 

, at *9 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2009) (quoting Blackman v. District of

Columbia, 397 F. Supp. 2d. 12, 14 (D.D.C. 2005)). “While some general oversight, collaboration,

and communication among attorneys” is appropriate, duplicity of work such as “multiple attorneys

attending hearings and conferences” or “working on the same legal issue” is not. Blackman, 56 F.

Supp. 3d at 29.

       Plaintiff fails to justify why a third counsel, Carla Fassbender, was necessary. See Pl.’s

Reply & Opp. Defs.’ Mot. (“Pl.’s Reply”) 19–20, ECF No. 13; cf. Petties, 

, at

*9 (finding no overstaffing where plaintiffs’ counsel submitted declarations outlining how the firm

divided tasks to avoid duplicative work). Fassbender attended the due process hearing and

performed additional billable work. See Pl.’s Reply at 20. Plaintiff elected to “practice[]

appropriate billing judgment” by only requesting reimbursement for Fassbender’s time at the

hearing. See Pl.’s Reply at 20. But Fassbender’s attendance at the hearing appears to have been

unnecessary. The hearing officer told Fassbender, “I feel like you’re being left out here” and, “you


                                                 7
should have examined someone so [] you’d have a chance to be noted more.” Defs.’ Mot.,

Transcript of Hearing (July 27, 2022) (“Hearing Tr. Day 2”) 83, 111, Ex. 3, ECF No. 12-5.

“[W]here three attorneys are present at a hearing when one would suffice, compensation should

be denied for the excess time.” Copeland v. Marshall, 

 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en

banc). Without detailed time entries to support the other work conducted by Fassbender, the Court

will not award fees based on her unnecessary attendance at the due process hearing. See 

       Next, Plaintiff concedes that clerical work was erroneously billed at an attorney’s rate

rather than a paralegal’s rate. See Pl.’s Reply at 18–19. However, tasks that “are clerical in nature

. . . cannot be included in attorney’s fees.” Jackson v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Michigan v. EPA, 254 F.3d at 1095–96). Rather, clerical services are

“considered part of normal administrative overhead.” Michigan v. EPA, 

.

Accordingly, the Court will deduct the below time entries from the overall award.

 Attorney    Hours      Rate        Description
 Stephenson Harvey
 7/24/22     7          $656.00     Prepare Trial Notebooks for Witnesses
 3/2/22      0.8        $656.00     Research Registered Agent for Service of Process, Principal
                                    for Friendship PCS-Elementary and Middle Schools. Emailed
                                    copies of DPC for service.

Time Entries at 4, 9.

       Finally, Plaintiff concedes that the 11.4 hours spent on the unsuccessful Motion for

Independent Educational Evaluations and the 0.3 hours spent at the resolution meeting are not

eligible for reimbursement. See Pl.’s Reply at 18–19; Time Entries at 8, 26–27.

                               b.      Protracting the Litigation

       A reduction in fees is permissible where a party “unreasonably protracted the final

resolution of the controversy.” 

(i)(3)(F)(i). A plaintiff does not unreasonably



                                                  8
protract litigation by rejecting a proposed settlement that “offer[s] neither all the relief that Plaintiff

sought, nor all the relief that Plaintiff eventually obtained.” Briggs v. District of Columbia, 

, 63 n.3 (D.D.C. 2014). FPCS’s highest settlement proposal to Plaintiff included 500

hours of compensatory education and $30,000 in attorney fees. See Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. at 19.

The hearing officer awarded Plaintiff 675 hours in compensatory education services. See Final

Determination at 906. This 175-hour delta more than justifies Plaintiff’s refusal of the settlement

offer and decision to pursue a hearing. See Briggs, 

 n.3.

                        Requested Rate

        In determining whether an attorney’s hourly rate is reasonable, a court examines “(1) ‘the

attorney[’s] billing practices,’ (2) ‘the attorney’s skill, experience, and reputation’ and (3) ‘the

prevailing market rates in the relevant community.’” Eley v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Covington, 

). The first element can be satisfied by

showing “the rate an attorney ‘customarily charges clients.’” Schiff v. District of Columbia, No.

18-cv-1382, 

, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2021) (quoting Jones v. District of

Columbia, No. 15-cv-1505, 

, at *5 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2019)). The second element

can be demonstrated by evidence of the “attorney’s expertise in IDEA cases such as the number

of cases litigated, engagement with the community, and the duration of the attorney’s career.”

Schiff, 

, at *2 (citing Jones, 

, at *6). To satisfy the third

element, a fee applicant may demonstrate prevailing market rates either by showing that IDEA

litigation qualifies for treatment under an established rate matrix or by providing evidence of the

fees charged and received by IDEA litigators in the community. See Reed, 

.




                                                    9
                               a.      Attorney’s Billing Practices

       “[A]n attorney’s usual billing rate is presumptively the reasonable rate, provided that this

rate is ‘in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably

comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’” U.F., 

, at *5 (quoting Kattan ex

rel. Thomas v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). An attorney may prove

her customary billing rate by affidavit. 

 Both of Plaintiff’s attorneys provided affidavits

declaring that the rates they billed in this matter were in line with their customary billing practices

and that those rates are in line with prevailing community norms. See Pl.’s Mot., Decl. of

Stephenson F. Harvey, Jr., Esq. (“Harvey Declaration”) ¶¶ 18–19, 21–25, Ex. 5, ECF No. 11-7;

Aff. of Pl.’s Counsel Keith Howard (“Howard Affidavit”) ¶¶ 12, 16, 20, 26–27, Ex. 6, ECF No.

11-8. These affidavits sufficiently establish that the attorneys’ billing rates were reasonable. See

Covington, 

.

                               b.      Attorney’s Skill, Reputation, and Experience

       Attorneys’ affidavits can also serve to demonstrate their skills, reputation, and experience.

See U.F., 

, at *5. Both Mr. Harvey and Mr. Howard provide affidavits attesting

to their skill, reputation, and experience. See Harvey Declaration ¶¶ 4–16; Howard Affidavit ¶¶ 2–

11. Mr. Harvey has practiced law for over seventeen years and has provided three declarations

from other attorneys attesting to his skill. See Harvey Declaration ¶ 4; Pl.’s Mot., Decls. of Carolyn

W. Houck, Esq., Kimm H. Massey, Esq., & Nigel Atwell, Esq. (“Declarations”) 6, 12, 17, Ex. 9,

ECF No. 11-11. Mr. Howard has over eighteen years of experience in special education law and

provides three additional declarations from attorneys attesting to his skill. See Howard Affidavit ¶

11; Declarations at 23, 28, 32. Thus, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Howard show themselves to be highly

experienced attorneys.




                                                  10
       For highly experienced attorneys, a 2:1 ratio is appropriate for comparing the

reasonableness of hearing preparation time with the length of the actual hearing. See E.C. v.

Philadelphia Sch. Dist., 

, 155–56 (3d Cir. 2016). The hearing here lasted 20

hours (two and a half days). See Defs.’ Mot., Transcript of Hearing (July 26, 2022) (“Hearing Tr.

Day 1”) 2, 178, Ex. 2, ECF No. 12-4 (7.5 hours from 9:35 A.M. to 4:53 P.M.); Hearing Tr. Day 2

at 2, 112 (4.5 hours from 9:01 A.M. to 1:37 P.M.); Defs.’ Mot., Transcript of Hearing (July 28,

2022) (“Hearing Tr. Day 3”) 2, 107, Ex. 4, ECF No. 12-6 (8 hours from 9:04 A.M. to 5:01 P.M.).

Thus, 118.7 hours spent on hearing preparation was excessive. See Def’s Mot. at 16; E.C., 644 F.

App’x at 155–56. Accordingly, the Court will reduce time entries spent on hearing preparation to

40 hours total.

                              c.      Prevailing Market Rate

       The prevailing market rate can be demonstrated by providing evidence of an applicable fee

matrix or typical IDEA rates in the community. See Reed, 

.

                                      i.    Fitzpatrick Matrix

       Historically, determining an appropriate fee matrix for awarding attorney’s fees under the

IDEA has proved difficult. See, e.g., Schiff, 

, at *2–3 (discussing the

development of the USAO Laffey Matrix, LSI Laffey Matrix, and USAO Matrix); J.T., 

, at *15 (bemoaning the “morass of dueling Circuit authority” on the subject). But there is

a new hope: the Fitzpatrick Matrix. See 

. “[T]he Fitzpatrick Matrix offers a superior

measure of the prevailing market rate for complex federal litigation in the District as compared to

the LSI Laffey Matrix.” 

. The parties agree. See Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. 4, 13, ECF No.

11-1, 13; Defs.’ Answer 1, ECF No. 5. However, the parties disagree as to whether the Fitzpatrick




                                                11
Matrix rates should be discounted based on the lack of complexity of this litigation. See Mem.

Supp. Pl.’s Mot. at 11–12; Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. at 7.

                                       ii.    Complex Litigation

       Only complex litigation receives full Fitzpatrick Matrix rates. See J.T., 

,

at *28. IDEA litigation is not presumptively complex. See DL v. District of Columbia, 

 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has “set a high bar” for IDEA plaintiffs “to

prove IDEA litigation is sufficiently complex” to merit full fee matrix rates. Harris v. Friendship

Pub. Charter Sch., No. 18-cv-396, 

, at *5 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2019); see Reed, 

. There is little guidance for plaintiffs on how to demonstrate that IDEA cases constitute

“complex federal litigation.” Reed, 

. But one thing is certain: “[m]ere conclusory

statements that IDEA litigation is ‘as complex’ as other types of cases deemed by this court to be

‘complex federal litigation,’ absent an explanation of why this is so, cannot suffice.” 

.

       The Court knows of only one IDEA case in this Circuit where a court applied the

Fitzpatrick Matrix: J.T. v. District of Columbia. 

. 2 The J.T. court applied 100%




2
  The Court is aware of six other cases in this Circuit that have applied the Fitzpatrick Matrix. See
Naumes v. Dep’t of the Army, No. 21-cv-1670, 

, at *6 (D.D.C. July 5, 2023)
(awarding full Fitzpatrick rates in a FOIA proceeding where the defendant did not object to the
rate sought); Brackett v. Mayorkas, No. 17-cv-988, 

, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 9,
2023) (awarding full Fitzpatrick rates in an employment discrimination proceeding where the
defendant conceded complexity); Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No.
20-cv-1128, 

, at *4–5 (D.D.C. May 16, 2023) (awarding 80% of Fitzpatrick
rates in a FOIA proceeding that was not “especially complex”); Vollmann v. Dep’t of Justice, No.
12-cv-939, 

, at *7 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2022) (awarding full Fitzpatrick rates in a
FOIA proceeding where the parties did not contest complexity); Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. Internal
Revenue Serv., No. 18-cv-902, 

, at *15 (D.D.C. June 2, 2023) (awarding full
Fitzpatrick rates in a FOIA proceeding where the defendant did not contest complexity); WP Co.
LLC v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-cv-1487, 

, at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2023)
(awarding full Fitzpatrick rates in a FOIA proceeding where the defendant did not contest
complexity).


                                                 12
of Fitzpatrick rates; however, the defendant had conceded that the proceedings were complex. 

at *28–29.

       Previously, a “vast number of district court cases” awarded IDEA fees at 75% of Laffey

matrix rates under “[t]he notion that a rate equivalent to 75% of Laffey rates approximates the

prevailing market rate for IDEA administrative proceedings.” Reed, 

. An

IDEA case that is not “particularly complex” provides “no reason to depart from the majority” of

IDEA cases that have found 75% of applicable rates to be reasonable. Taylor v. District of

Columbia, 

, 83 (D.D.C. 2016).

       Plaintiff relies on Salazar ex rel. Salazar to argue that “IDEA litigation, by its nature, is

complex litigation.” Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. at 12 (citing 

 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). However,

Salazar is a Medicaid case, not an IDEA one. See 

. Indeed, the court in Salazar

noted that “in the particular context of IDEA claims, there is a submarket in which attorneys’

hourly fees are generally lower” than Laffey matrix rates. 

. Proving complexity requires

apples to apples, not IDEA to Medicaid. See Harris, 

 at *4.

       Plaintiff also proffers declarations from IDEA litigators stating that IDEA litigation is

generally complex. See Declarations at 11, 21–22, 27. These declarations argue for categorical

complexity in IDEA litigation without further justification. See 

 This position is both legally

incorrect and factually insufficient. See Reed, 

 (refusing to find that IDEA litigation

is complex on the basis of six declarations from IDEA attorneys attesting to its complexity).

Because Plaintiff has not met the burden of demonstrating complexity, 75% of the Fitzpatrick

Matrix rates is appropriate.




                                                 13
                        Reduction of Overall Award

        It is “within a court’s discretion to reduce the overall fee award to reflect th[e] degree of

success, regardless of whether the total number of hours expended was reasonable.” Brown v.

District of Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal citation omitted).

        Plaintiff sought relief for FPCS’s failures over the course of five school years. See Final

Determination at 899. The hearing officer determined that FPCS only failed in its responsibilities

during four of those years. See id. at 900. This difference can sustain a reduced award. See, e.g.,

B.R. ex rel. Rempson v. District of Columbia, 

, 164–65 (D.D.C. 2011)

(reducing award by 50% because of plaintiff’s success on claim regarding one school year, but

failure on another). Plaintiff’s lack of complete success is also evidenced by the rejection of

Plaintiff’s experts’ proposal of compensatory education awards totaling thousands of hours. See

Hearing Tr. Day 1 at 161 (proposing 3,905 hours). Instead, the hearing officer awarded only 675

hours. See Final Determination at 906. Because Plaintiff “received less than all of the relief she

sought, reducing her fee award is justifiable.” Joaquin, 188 F. Supp. 3d at 9.

        However, Plaintiff’s claims are based on “interrelated facts” and therefore an award

reduction cannot be made on “a claim-by-claim basis.” Id. at 11. In such cases, the court should

“focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours that

counsel reasonably expended on the litigation.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, a 10%

reduction fairly represents the significance of the overall relief in relation to the hours reasonably

expended. Courts have applied a 10% reduction in similar cases. See, e.g., Burks v. District of

Columbia, No. 18-cv-2726, 

, at *9–10 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2019) (reducing award

by 10% where plaintiff “succeeded on most of the substance of her claims”); Taylor v. District of

Columbia, 

 (D.D.C. 2016) (reducing award by 10% where “plaintiff




                                                  14
prevailed on the most significant aspects of her claims but her relief was limited in comparison to

the proceeding as a whole”); Brown, 

 (reducing award by 10% where

“Plaintiff prevailed on the most important aspects of his claims”).

       B.      Expert Fees

       Courts have wide discretion to deny expert fees that are not “reasonable and based on

prevailing rates.” Lloyd ex rel. M.L. v. Ingenuity Prep Pub. Charter Sch., No. 18-cv-801, 

, at *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020); see 

(7)(B). More than a “thin

record” such as a resume alone is required to establish the reasonableness of expert fees. J.T., 

, at *2. Reasonableness may be inferred where experts charge the same fees as those

that they earn from paying clients, as “[t]here is no better indication of what the market will bear

than what the [expert] in fact charges for his services and what his clients pay.” Pryor v. District

of Columbia, No. 18-cv-920, 

, at *10 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2018) (internal citation

omitted).

       Plaintiff requests $6,000 for the use of four different experts. 3 See Pl.’s Reply at 23.

Plaintiff provides the experts’ reports and invoices. See Pl.’s Mot., Rachel Reder, Special

Education Report, Ex. 7, ECF No. 11-9; Pl.’s Mot., Final Report of Jennifer Holmes for K.M., Ex.

8, ECF No. 11-10; Pl.’s Mot., Dori B. Cook, Education Consultation Summary, Ex. 10, ECF No.

11-12; Pl.’s Mot., Invoices 12–14, Ex. 11, ECF No. 11-13. Plaintiff states that the expert fees

requested are reasonable “[b]ecause of the complexity of the matter, including the number of years

the Student was denied a FAPE, the extensive expert reports, and lengthy due process hearing.”

Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. at 14. However, Plaintiff offers insufficient evidence as to what the



3
  Plaintiff originally requested $8,765.01 in expert fees, but later amended the request to the
statutory cap of $6,000. See Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. at 14; Pl.’s Reply at 23; 

(7)(B).


                                                 15
prevailing rates are and insufficient analysis as to how the expert fees are reasonable in comparison

to such rates. Plaintiff merely states that three of the experts charged rates “lower than rates in the

District of Columbia” because they hail from North Carolina, and that the fees are generally

“consistent and in line with the rates typically charged in the District of Columbia.” Pl.’s Reply at

23. Such generic statements are inadequate because they have “little bearing on establishing rates

prevailing in the community.” Hunter v. District of Columbia, No. 18-cv-813, 

,

at *8 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Plaintiff has not presented

“any evidence concerning rates prevailing in the community for her experts—as is her burden”—

no expert fees shall be granted. 

 (cleaned up).

       Separately, it appears that Plaintiff’s four expert witnesses were unhelpful. This provides

an independent basis for rejecting the request for expert fees. See Rodriquez v. Farmers Ins. Co.

of Ariz., 

 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of expert fees where plaintiff

provided no evidence that experts were “crucial or indispensable”). Here, the hearing officer stated

that the experts used “methodology [] disapproved by the D.C. Circuit” and did not provide “the

information needed to craft an appropriate compensatory education award.” Interim Determination

at 802. The court is not persuaded that it should reimburse Plaintiff for costs of putting on evidence

that “help[ed the hearing officer] not at all” because it was “not the right evidence,” thus “leav[ing

the officer] in a bind.” Hearing Tr. Day 3 at 90.

       C.      Expenses

       Courts traditionally reimburse claims for costs such as copying and filing fees. See, e.g.,

Holbrook, 

 (granting copying, faxing, and postage fees); Fisher v. Friendship

Pub. Charter Sch., 

 (D.D.C. 2012) (granting filing fee). FPCS does not




                                                    16
challenge Plaintiff’s request for $530.87 4 in expenses. See Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. at 14.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds this request reasonable.

       D.      Post-Judgment Interest

       “Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district

court.” 

(a); see Brown, 

; Kaseman v. District of Columbia,

 (D.D.C. 2004); Holbrook, 

. “Post-judgment interest

is appropriate when a district court enters a judgment awarding reasonable attorney’s fees under

IDEA.” Kaseman, 

. Defendants’ assertion that post-judgment interest is

reserved for those cases in which a school district has a poor payment history is incorrect. See

Defs.’ Mot. at 21–22. Although this court has emphasized parties’ “poor payment track record[s]”

in the course of approving post-judgment interest, a poor track record is not prerequisite to the

award. B.J. v. District of Columbia, No. 19-cv-2163, 

, at *5 (D.D.C. Nov. 9,

2020) (quoting U.F., 

, at *9). Plaintiff has requested that interest begin accruing

after 30 days, a length of time the Court agrees is reasonable. See Kaseman, 

(ordering that post-judgment begin accruing after 31 days).

IV.    CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

       1.      Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART;

       2.      Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART;




4
 The $530.87 request comprises a filing fee of $402, see Pl.’s Mot., Invoices 2, Ex. 11, ECF No.
11-13, and copying and printing expenses, see Time Entries at 10, 33–34.


                                               17
          3.     Defendants pay the following fees and costs totaling $93,919.69: 5 $46,521.86 to

Plaintiff’s attorney Stephenson Harvey; $46,866.96 to Plaintiff’s attorney Keith Howard, and

$530.87 in expenses.

          4.     Post-judgment interest shall accrue after 30 days at the rate specified in 

.



SO ORDERED.

                                                                  Zia M.
Date: December 18, 2023                                           Faruqui
                                                ___________________________________
                                                ZIA M. FARUQUI
                                                UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE




5
    The Court’s calculation leading to the total fees and costs owed is set forth in Appendix A.


                                                  18
                                             APPENDIX A

    Total Amount Requested                                               $ 249,354.40
    Stephenson Harvey Attorney’s Fees                                    $ 112,966.70
    Keith Howard Attorney’s Fees                                         $ 127,092.30
    Expert fees                                                          $ 8,765.01
    Expenses                                                             $ 530.87 6

    Deductions

    Hours spent drafting complaint (50% deduction)                       -$ 4,395.20 (Harvey)
                                                                         -$ 4,395.60 (Howard)
    Hours spent on supplemental expert report (full deduction)           -$ 688.80 (Harvey)
                                                                         -$ 877.50 (Howard)
    Attorney Fassbender (full deduction)                                 -$ 8,647.80 (Howard)
    Clerical work (full deduction)                                       - $5,116.80 (Harvey)
    Conceded time entries (full deduction)                               -$ 4,526.40 (Harvey)
                                                                         -$ 3,240 (Howard)
    Hours spent preparing for hearing (reduction from 118.7 to 40 hours, -$ 20,703.07 (Harvey)
    split equitably between attorneys 7)                                 -$ 31,819.80 (Howard)
    Total with Time Entry Reductions                                     $ 77,536.43 (Harvey)
                                                                         $ 78,111.60 (Howard)
    Total with 75% of Fitzpatrick Matrix rates applied                   $ 58,152.32 (Harvey)
                                                                         $ 58,583.70 (Howard)
    Total with 20% Overall Reduction applied                             $ 46,521.86 (Harvey)
    (10% for vague time entries + 10% for limited success)               $ 46,866.96 (Howard)
    Expert fees (full deduction)                                         -$ 8,765.01
    TOTAL                                                                $ 46,521.86 (Harvey)
                                                                         $ 46,866.96 (Howard)
                                                                         $ 530.87 (expenses)
                                                                         $ 93,919.69

See Time Entries at 2, 4, 8–10, 13, 18–20, 26–27, 29, 31–35.


6
 There is a $0.26 discrepancy between the amounts claimed and supporting documentation
which this analysis ignores as de minimis.
7
  The Court calculates this reduction equitably between the attorneys by reducing both attorneys’
hours to 33.7% (40 hours ÷ 118.7 hours) of the total shown in the table found at Defs.’ Opp. 14–
15. This equates to a 31.56 hour reduction for Mr. Harvey at $656/hour and a 47.14 hour
reduction for Mr. Howard at $675/hour.


                                                 19