to deter. The specific fees and costs are discussed below. See infra Section II.E. d. Mitigation of Damages In determining whether the injured party’s fees are reasonable, the court must consider whether the injured parly fulfilled its “duty to mitigate costs by not overstaffing, overresearching or overdiscovering dearly meritless claims.” White, 908 F.2d at 684 (emphasis added). Defendant included in its statement the staffing expenses incurred by six attorneys, seven non-attorneys (support staff) and seven expert witnesses. Def.’s Statement at 3-5. Defendant also included travel expenses for three attorneys. Id. at 6. Many of Austin’s misrepresentations were contentions of fact that Austin falsely claimed he could prove. The contentions were rs, 857 F.2d 191, 194 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). But see Kirk Capital, 16 F.3d at 1490
holding that a district court commits reversible error when it sentences a defendant to less than the statutory minimum where no exception to the mandatory minimum applies holding that a district courts choice of deterrent is appropriate when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior  holding inference appropriate when reliance is the only logical explanation to explain behavior holding that the determination that an alien is an undesirable person is not a conviction of crime nor is the deportation a punishment it is simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want holding that it is not