- 44 -
Court rather than the appeal. We reduce the claimed hours
accordingly.
f. Duplicate Entries
We have identified 10 time entries that appear to be
duplicative or, in our judgment, are excessive in light of other,
similar entries. Elimination of those 10 entries results in an
additional 13.05-hour reduction (including 8 fee request hours).
g. Separately Claimed Fee Request Hours
In their latest filing, the Izen petitioners claim an
additional 117.4 hours of attorney time relating to work on their
fee request. In an affidavit submitted with that filing, Izen
states that he devoted 36 hours to the initial preparation of the
fee request, 8.25 hours to the latest filing, and 73.15 hours to
a variety of tasks (described and dated in 13 numbered
paragraphs) between May 10, 2005 and April 24, 2006. The problem
here is one of overlap. The initial fee request (apparently
mailed on May 12, 2005) includes time entries for May 9-11, 2005,
claiming 28.5 hours (10, 12, and 6.5 hours, respectively) for
preparation of the fee request. In his latest affidavit, Izen
claims an additional 15.33 hours relating to fee request
preparation on May 10 and 12, 2005 (7.33 and 8 hours,
respectively). The new claim of 7.33 hours for May 10 duplicates
the earlier May 10 time entry claiming 12 hours. Adding the
additional 8 hours claimed for May 12 to the 28.5 hours
previously claimed for May 9-11 produces a total of 36.5 hours
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011