process hearing, and are therefore reasonable. d. Entries that are Vague and Lack Specificity The defendants further contend that the descriptions of certain charges are so vague that they deprive the court of the ability to determine whether such hours were reasonably expended. Defs.’ Opp’n at 17. The defendants therefore argue that 4.0 hours should be disallowed from the plaintiffs fee petition, reducing the total by an additional $905.00. Id. at 18. By contrast, the plaintiff insists that these charges are sufficiently detailed, and that including more detailed information would breach the rule of confidentiality. PL’s Mot. at 11. Although a fee request “need not present the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted, 9, 158-59 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>); Coleman v. District of Columbia, 2007 WL
holding that the independent counsel reauthorization act does not permit fees claimed for the preparation of a fee application holding that a court reporter can recover attorneys fees for a suit involving the preparation of a record because the claim was for personal services holding that time entries such as preparation for hearing or preparation for school visit were too vague and reducing overall fee award by twentyfive percent holding that entries such as conference with parent and telephone call to dcps were vague and reducing overall fee award by ten percent holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable