IDEA context). Here, the plaintiffs failure to award to account for such deficiencies. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (“[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly”); Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 973 (D.C.Cir.2004) (reducing overall fee award by fifty percent where documentation of time records was deficient); In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C.Cir.1989) (applying an overall reduction where time entries were inadequate). The court accordingly reduces the overal tion that IDEA administrative litigation is categorically less complex than other forms of litigation, and reaffirms that IDEA cases are sufficiently complex to allow application of the Laffey Matrix. See Jackson, 696 F.Supp.2d at 102 (<HOLDING>); Nesbit, Civ. No. 01-2429, at 1 (refusing to
holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable holding that idea administrative proceedings which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a fape are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the laffey matrix holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required holding that plaintiffs may provide evidence to supplement the laffey matrix including fees awarded to attorneys with similar qualifications in comparable cases holding that the laffey matrix is the proper formula to determine the prevailing market rate for legal services rendered in connection with idea administrative proceedings