fee award by twenty-five percent to account for these and, as indicated below, other deficiencies in the plaintiffs fee petition. b. Clerical and Other NonProfessional Services The defendants argue that the plaintiffs counsel inappropriately billed for clerical tasks, a type of acti may be reimbursable if they cannot be separated from legal activities. Cf. Lopez, 38 F.Supp.2d at 25 (explaining that charges for “filing” motions were not reimbursable because they were purely clerical, not de minimis). In this case, the defendants declined to reimburse the plaintiff for activities suc he plaintiffs’ counsel’s rate was reasonable because it was below the Laffey Matrix rate for attorneys of her experience); Nesbit v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 01-2429, at 1 (D.D.C. Nov. 4, 2003) (Order) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, this court has rejected the
holding that plaintiffs may provide evidence to supplement the laffey matrix including fees awarded to attorneys with similar qualifications in comparable cases 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 once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable 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