for Mr. Renninger’s deposition and five hours for Mr. Robert’s deposition was excessive. I find that these hours were appropriate considering the importance of these depositions. The gravity of Mr. Renninger’s testimony is exhibited in the length of his deposition, lasting from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with 40 exhibits. Thus, I find it reasonable that Mr. Surkin took the time to prepare for these key witnesses’ depositions. Defendant also objects to hours spent during the administrative phase of Plaintiffs case. I find it unreasonable that Defendant objects to the time spent with client during the administrative phase of his case. First, these hours were brought to the Court’s attention numerous times and have already been addressed. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 & n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (<HOLDING>). Second, the administrative phase is an
holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees holding that the debtor must request attorneys fees in the answer to a complaint in a  523a case holding that request for attorneys fees should not result in a second major litigation holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue