“Where tag teams of attorneys are involved, fee applications should be scrutinized with especial care.” Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 298 (1st Cir.2001). In this case, the hours reported to the Court disclose numerous instances of unnecessary duplication and over-expenditures of efforts by Plaintiffs’ counsel. See Ackerley Communications v. Somerville, 901 F.2d 170, 171-73 (1st Cir. 1990); Grendel’s Den v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 953 (1st Cir.1984). The Court has also found several instances of unnecessary billing for clerical tasks, as well as instances of counsel’s failure to provide appropriately specific accounting documentation detailing the dates and tasks for which the reported hours were expended. See Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 940 (1st Cir.1992)(<HOLDING>); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933
holding that a trial court improperly permitted billing clerical task at lawyers rates holding that a lawyers willful absence from his clients trial is contemptuous holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level holding trial court erred when it permitted jury to consider ucc impliedwarranty theories where evidence was insufficient to prove defective product at issue was sold holding that trial court improperly dismissed charges pretrial because the state did not disclose the identity of a confidential informant