fee to the Government. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (“Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are not properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to statutory authority.” (quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en bane)) (emphasis in original)). Pursuant to section 4654(c), expenses associated with filing a Fifth Amendment takings claim are reimbursable; expenses incurred prior and not directly related to the filing itself are not. See, e.g., Preseault v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 667, 671 (2002) (“Section 4654(c) does not provide for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by plaintiffs before their decision to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims.”); see also Emeny v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 522, 527, 526 F.2d 1121 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Although the Court acknowledges that Marzulla
holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to include in its attorneys fees award the depositionrelated travel expenses incurred by prevailing plaintiffs counsel in an adea case holding that the plain language of 42 usc  4654c precludes the court from including in its award to the plaintiffs any reimbursement for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs before they decided to file suit in the court of claims under 28 usc  1491 holding that a plaintiff who prevailed on a 42 usc  1983 claim was entitled to an award of attorneys fees incurred on appeal holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that plaintiffs claim properly belonged only in the court of federal claims under 28 usc  1491