and several clerks attend the trial. Moreover, despite [counsel’s] highly professional trial and witness exhibits, the Court believe[d] much of the exhibit preparation and pretrial- discovery, and other legal work, was duplicative. In addition, [counsel’s] records for the trial time demonstrate^] an aggregation of attorney time and tasks performed in certain matters. Id. at 127. Similarly, in Lochren v. County of Suffolk, 344 Fed.Appx. 706, 709 (2d Cir. 2009), the Second Circuit affirmed a 25 percent cut “because plaintiffs overstaffed the case, resulting in the needless duplication of work and retention of unnecessary personnel.” Other district and appellate courts have also pared hours based on overstaffing. See, e.g., Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (<HOLDING>), accord Luciano, 109 F.3d at 117; Mazzei v.
holding that attorneys could not recover fees in excess of amount billed holding that defendant must assert right of confrontation and right to be present at time of alleged violation and cannot claim those rights for first time on appeal holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed holding that where three attorneys are present at a hearing when one would suffice compensation should be denied for the excess time holding that risk is measured at the point when the attorneys time was committed to the case