as “updated file and filing doc” and “conversation w/HOD.” See Defs.’ Opp’n, Ex. A at 3. Because these activities were purely clerical, they are not compensable u cient detail of the plaintiffs charges into its overall reduction of the total fee award. 2. The Reasonableness of the Plaintiffs Hourly Rates a. The U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix is the Proper Means by Which to Determine Fee Awards The plaintiff argues that the Laffey Matrix is applicable to IDEA cases. See PL’s Mot. at 6. She urges the court to adopt the Adjusted Laffey Matrix instead of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix, asserting that it is a better representation of prevail ing market rates. See Pl.’s Reply at 4. The defen r conclusions. See, e.g., Brown v. Jordan P.C.S., 539 F.Supp.2d 436, 438 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Kaseman, 329 F.Supp.2d at 25-26 (holding that
holding that jury instructions were not erroneous when they substantially conformed to section 61012 holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that the plaintiffs hourly rates were reasonable because they conformed to the updated laffey matrix and were customary for similar cases holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed holding that apprendi was not triggered because the defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that were within the maximum penalties for the rico offenses that they were found guilty of committing