reduction of hours in light of “concerns regarding unspecified conferences, telephone calls, email correspondence, and reviews.” 757 F.3d 31, 64 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Francois v. Mazer, 528 Fed.Appx. 28, 29 (2d Cir. 2013) (upholding 40 percent across-the-board reduction in hours); Green v. City of New York, 403 Fed.Appx. 626, 630 (2d Cir. 2010) (upholding 15 percent across-the-board reduction); Kirsch, 148 F.3d at 173 (upholding “20% reduction for vagueness, inconsistencies, and other deficiencies in the billing records”). . In addition, a district court has discretion to reduce requested attorneys’ fees where the prevailing party assigned an' inordinate number of attorneys to litigate the action. See Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 109 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). In Luciano, the Second Circuit cited
holding the district courts conclusion that the attorney should receive no compensation was an abuse of discretion because we are confident that some legitimate time was expended by the attorney holding in a title vii case that it was within the purview of the courts discretion to determine whether or not the actual time expended by an additional attorney was reasonable holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion