substantive work in SEIU Local 1; Berzon provided substantive and strategic guidance; Chandra, Géntry, and McTigue had knowledge of the NEOCH case'history and substantive work on the pending motions; and Miller and Harsh-man performed work on the evidence presented in both cases. Given the importance of this hearing, complexity of the issues, and the number of parties involved in the two cases, the number of counsel present does not seem unreasonable. In any event, the district court was there and in a far better spot to assess whether the number of counsel was necessary. The district court’s ruling that Plaintiffs’ requested fees for travel to and from the court for various oral arguments was therefore proper. See, e.g., Wayne v. Vill. of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 532 (6th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>); Perotti, 935 F.2d at 764 (noting that
holding that the time to disposition is more important than time to trial holding that travel time is fully compensable recognizing that time to consider reasonableness of plaintiffs position is at time of initiation of litigation recognizing discretion to consider argument raised for first time on appeal if issue is matter of law and either does not depend on the factual record or the pertinent record has been fully developed holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision