fact gathering of the case that was essential for the PHRC fact finding conference. Thus, I find this time to be reasonably spent. 5. Nature of Ms. Chin’s and Mr. Kirby’s Entries Defendant objects to the clerical nature of entries for Mr. Kirby and counsel's paralegal, Ms. Chin. (Def.'s Opp., Ex. I, J.) Plaintiff concedes three entries of Ms. Chin's time that will be adjusted accordingly. For the remainder of Ms. Chin’s entries, Plaintiff argues that they reflect paralegal work, including organizing and indexing discovery materials, and that entries regarding copying reflect simultaneous paralegal work on discovery matters. Clerical tasks should not be billed at senior associate or paralegal rates. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (<HOLDING>), see also Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. &
holding purely clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal rate regardless of who performs them recognizing that 90 per hour is a reasonable rate for a paralegal holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate holding that paralegal fees may be recovered at a market rate but only to the extent that a paralegal performs work that would normally be done by an attorney holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine