F.Supp.2d at 45 (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1327); see also Smith v. District of Columbia, 466 F.Supp.2d 151, 158 (D.D.C.2006). Yet a fee petition that does not identify the specific attorneys who performed each respective activity is considered insufficiently detailed. Gray v. District of Columbia, 779 F.Supp.2d 68, 72 n. 5 (D.D.C.2011). Without such information, the court is unable to evaluate whether an attorney’s hourly billable rate and billed hours are reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); see also Blackman v. District of Columbia, 397 F.Supp.2d 12, 14 (D.D.C.2005) (applying Hensley in t ate an exception to the application of the Laffey Matrix for IDEA litigation); see also Cox, 754 F.Supp.2d at 76 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, this court has rejected the
holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings holding that to qualify for a special factor increase the attorney must have some distinctive knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question   holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge holding that counsel must have specialized knowledge of the bureaucracy and practices of dcps to handle idea cases holding that the standard of care applicable to a reasonable pharmaceutical company marketing product after minimum testing and without a warning does not entail specialized knowledge or skill unique to a scientific discipline and beyond the knowledge and experience of the average jury