the application must still be sufficiently detailed to allow the court to determine whether the hours claimed are reasonable. See Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1327. Where adequate time records are not kept, the court may reduce the overall fee. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433,103 S.Ct. 1933. The defendants object to entries such as “Telephone w/DCPS,” “Conversation w/HOD,” “Visit to Kimball ES” and “spoke with grandmother in prep for hearing.” See PL’s Mot., Ex. A; Defs.’ Opp’n, Ex. A. These descriptions are unintelligible and therefore inadequate because they prevent the court from being able to make an independent determination of whether the hours expended behind such tasks are reasonable. See Dickens v. Friendship-Edison P.C.S., 724 F.Supp.2d 113, 124-25 (D.D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>); Clark v. District of Columbia, 674 F.Supp.2d
recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award holding that even after a ten percent reduction to the lodestar fee the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider the result obtained relative to the attorneys fees requested holding that time entries such as preparation for hearing or preparation for school visit were too vague and reducing overall fee award by twentyfive percent holding that the ridings at whitpain does not require a reduction in an attorney fee award for an unsuccessful complaint but simply concluded that a trial court was justified in reducing the award if the record supported such a decision holding that entries such as conference with parent and telephone call to dcps were vague and reducing overall fee award by ten percent