to rebut Plaintiffs evidence, and this burden is not met given Defendants’ failure to distinguish DeSi-mone other five cases. In sum, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that DeSimone’s fee rate should be reduced simply because one state court in a different case decided more than four years ago reduced DeSi-mone’s fee rate. iv. The lower fee rates of Defendants’ attorneys are not valid bases for reducing Class Counsel’s fee rates Defendants argue that Class Counsel’s fee rate should be reduced because Defendants’ attorneys billed at lower rates than Class Counsel. Defendants’ argument fails as a matter of law because Defendants’ attorneys’ hourly rate charged to clients is not the standard by which Class Counsel’s fees are measured. See Trevino, supra, 99 F.3d at 925 (<HOLDING>). See also EEOC v. Harris Farms, Inc., 2006 WL
recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding improper counsels argument that plaintiff was entitled to something for manner in which defense was conducted holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence holding defense counsels rates to be an improper starting point in determining plaintiff counsels reasonable hourly rate