is needed in its time records under the Indenture, a request for an administrative claim under section 503(b) requires the same level of documentation and substantiation as a request for compensation under section 330. Del. Bankr. L.R. 2016 — 2(a)(ii). See also In re Granite Partners, L.P., 213 B.R. 440, 447 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.1997). The Court will not summarily dismiss the Applications because they do contain some detail. The Court will consider the time records as submitted, but “should not be obliged to pick apart the fee application to explain which services are not compensable; the [applicant] is required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, which services are.” Granite Partners, 213 B.R. at 452. See also In re Busy Beaver Bldg. Ctrs., Inc., 19 F.3d 833, 845-46 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). B. Administrative Claim WTC seeks an
holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding that habeas petitioner need not demonstrate adverse effect on representation but need only prove an actual conflict to justify habeas relief on account of a conflict of interest holding that fee application must be sufficiently detailed to allow court to make an independent evaluation as to what fees are actual and necessary and finding that failure to keep contemporaneous records does not automatically result in denial of the fees but the lack thereof justifies a reduction of the fee to the level proven holding that the nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference holding that bankruptcy court need not become enmeshed in a meticulous analysis of every detailed facet of the professional representation but need only correct reasonably discernible abuses after affording fee applicants a hearing to respond to objections to their fees