Oskowis v. Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District #9

Filing 134

ORDER: The District's amended motion for attorneys' fees (Doc. 124 ) is granted in part and denied in part; Oskowis's motion to review taxation of costs (Doc. 129 ) is granted in part and denied in part; Oskowis must pay the Distric t $41,244.38 in attorneys' fees; and The clerk of court is directed to amend its taxation order to tax costs for the District in the amount of $557.20. (See Order for further details.) Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 10/9/2019. (SST)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Matthew Oskowis,

No. CV-17-08070-PCT-DWL

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District
#9,

13
14

Defendant.

15

Pending before the Court is an amended motion for attorneys’ fees filed by

16

Defendant Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District #9 (“the District”) (Doc. 124) and a

17

motion to review taxation of costs filed by Plaintiff Matthew Oskowis (Doc. 129). For the

18

following reasons, both motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Oskowis is the father of E.O., a minor diagnosed with infantile autism. Because

21

E.O. suffers from an intellectual disability, he is entitled to a free appropriate public

22

education (“FAPE”) as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

23

(“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. This case arises from three administrative proceedings

24

that were initiated when Oskowis filed due process complaints with the Arizona

25

Department of Education, each arguing that E.O. had been denied a FAPE.

26

Oskowis filed those due process complaints between June 2016 and March 2017,

27

initiating administrative proceedings 16C-DP-066-ADE, 17C-DP-013-ADE, and 17C-DP-

28

053-ADE. In each of those proceedings, the respective administrative law judge (“ALJ”)

1

dismissed Oskowis’s complaint without a hearing, determining that the complaint was

2

frivolous.

3

On April 13, 2017, Oskowis filed this lawsuit. (Doc. 1.) The operative complaint

4

asserted three causes of action, each corresponding to one of the administrative

5

proceedings. (Doc. 17.) Oskowis claimed that the ALJs erred in dismissing his due process

6

complaints. (Id.)

7
8

On June 22, 2018, the District moved for summary judgment on all three causes of
action. (Doc. 68.)

9
10

On February 19, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the District.
(Doc. 77.)

11
12

On August 22, 2019, the District filed an amended motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc.
124.)

13
14

On August 28, 2019, Oskowis filed a motion to review taxation of costs. (Doc.
129).

15
16

DISCUSSION
I.

The District’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees

17

The District seeks attorneys’ fees incurred while defending the action in this Court

18

and while pursuing the pending request for attorneys’ fees. It does not, in contrast, seek

19

any fees arising from its defense of the three administrative proceedings. Nevertheless,

20

because the administrative proceedings are relevant to understanding Oskowis’s causes of

21

action in this case, the Court reviews them below.

22
23

A.

Oskowis’s Causes Of Action
1. Cause Of Action I: 17C-DP-013-ADE

24

Cause of Action I arose from administrative proceeding 17C-DP-013-ADE, which

25

Oskowis initiated on September 1, 2016 by filing a due process complaint. (Doc. 17 ¶ 36.)

26

Oskowis argued the District denied E.O. a FAPE by (1) failing “to monitor [E.O.’s]

27

progress against the annual goals & objectives of [his] IEP [individualized education

28

program] [and] their corresponding STOs [short term objectives]” and (2) failing “to

-2-

1

engage the IEP Team to revise the IEP to address the lack of expected progress of [E.O.]

2

toward those STOs.” (Id. ¶ 38.)

3

The ALJ dismissed Oskowis’s due process complaint on March 10, 2017. (Doc.

4

75-1 at 2-6.) The ALJ’s order concluded: “Petitioners’ Complaint fails as a matter of law

5

and should be dismissed as the claims therein are not supported by the IDEA or its

6

regulations. Given the [rejection of the same argument in past proceedings] and the lack

7

of any support in the IDEA or its regulations on this claimed issued, the Petitioners’ instant

8

Complaint is deemed to be frivolous.” (Doc. 75-1 at 6.)1

9

This Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the District on

10

Cause of Action I, determining that the ALJ had properly rejected each of Oskowis’s claims

11

in that proceeding. (Doc. 77.) The Court rejected Oskowis’s first claim—that the District

12

had failed to monitor E.O.’s progress in relation to the objectives set out in his IEP—

13

because, under the IDEA, how progress toward short-term objectives or benchmarks is to

14

be monitored or provided “is left up to the IEP drafters.” (Id. at 9-10.) E.O.’s IEP “only

15

required the District to provide three progress reports during the school year,” which

16

Oskowis acknowledged he received. (Id.) The Court also rejected Oskowis’s second

17

claim, that the District should have amended E.O.’s IEP because E.O. wasn’t meeting his

18

STOs, because “[t]here is no requirement that a school revise an IEP midway through the

19

school year when a student isn’t making progress toward STOs.” (Id. at 10-11.)

20

2. Cause Of Action II: 16C-DP-066-ADE

21

Cause of Action II arose from administrative proceeding 16C-DP-066-ADE, which

22

Oskowis initiated on June 16, 2016 by filing a due process complaint. (Doc. 17 ¶ 57.)

23

Oskowis argued the District denied E.O. a FAPE over three calendar years because: (1) the

24

District didn’t provide a qualified paraprofessional to E.O.; (2) the paraprofessional

25

provided by the District wasn’t adequately supervised by the special education teacher; and

26
27
28

Although the order stated the “Complaint is dismissed as a matter of law for failure
to state a claim” (Doc. 75-1 at 6), it also included a footnote suggesting the ALJ was making
a “summary judgment determination” rather than “a possible sufficiency determination.”
(Doc. 75-1 at 2 n.1.)
1

-3-

1

(3) the IDEA precluded E.O.’s paraprofessional from providing services within E.O.’s self-

2

contained special education classroom. (Id. ¶ 59; Doc. 69-1 at 42-56.)

3

The District filed a response on June 24, 2016. Included as attachments to the

4

response were “affidavits from two of [E.O.’s] prior special education teachers attesting

5

that they provided direct supervision of the paraprofessional” as well as evidence

6

demonstrating the paraprofessional’s qualifications. (Doc. 75-1 at 11; see also Doc. 69

7

¶¶ 12-15, 17-20.)

8

During a “prehearing conference,” the ALJ asked Oskowis to address the evidence

9

that had been submitted by the District. Oskowis “acknowledged . . . that [he] had no

10

information or belief to support [his] allegation that the paraprofessional did not meet the

11

requirements . . . to be considered a qualified paraprofessional” and similarly “offered no

12

basis for [his] allegation that the special education teacher did not properly supervise the

13

paraprofessional.” (Doc. 75-1 at 10-11; see also Doc. 69 ¶ 16.)

14

Accordingly, on March 13, 2017, the ALJ issued an order dismissing Oskowis’s

15

complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 75-1 at 9-12.) The order concluded: “Given

16

the baseless assertions presented in the Complaint, Petitioners’ Complaint is deemed

17

frivolous. IT IS ORDERED granting Respondent School District’s Motion to Dismiss the

18

Complaint.” (Id. at 12, emphasis omitted.)

19

This Court granted summary judgment to the District on Cause of Action II, holding

20

that the ALJ had properly dismissed each of Oskowis’s claims in that proceeding. (Doc.

21

77 at 11-13.) First, the Court held that E.O.’s paraprofessional—Ms. Parry—was qualified

22

because she “holds a high school diploma (Doc. 69-2 at 10) and she obtained a passing

23

score on Education Testing Services’ ParaPro Assessment (id. at 12-15),” which means she

24

satisfied the requirements to be deemed “highly qualified” under the NCLB, which was in

25

effect during the three years at issue. (Doc. 77 at 12.) The Court also noted that, at the

26

prehearing conference held by the ALJ in the administrative proceeding, Oskowis admitted

27

“he didn’t have any evidence to show the paraprofessional was unqualified.” (Id., citing

28

Doc. 75-1 at 10-11.)

-4-

1

Second, for similar reasons, the Court upheld the ALJ’s determination that Oskowis

2

hadn’t demonstrated that the special education teacher failed to supervise Ms. Parry. (Id.

3

at 13.)

4

administrative proceedings that satisfied each of the supervision requirements in the

5

NCLB.2 Moreover, Oskowis “conceded, during the prehearing conference, that he didn’t

6

have any contrary evidence,” and had, during an earlier due process hearing, “testified he

7

had never observed E.O. in the classroom and didn’t have any first-hand knowledge of

8

what occurred in the classroom.” (Doc. 77 at 13 & n.9, citing Doc. 75-1 at 11 n.2.)

The Court explained that the District had presented evidence during the

9

Third, the Court determined the ALJ correctly rejected Oskowis’s claim “that the

10

IDEA prohibits supplementary aids from rendering services outside a regular education

11

classroom.” (Doc. 77 at 13.) This is because “[u]nder 34 C.F.R. § 300.42, ‘supplementary

12

aids and services’ mean ‘aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular

13

education classes, other education-related settings, and in extracurricular and nonacademic

14

settings, to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the

15

maximum extent appropriate . . . .’ Id. (emphases added). Therefore, “the ALJ properly

16

concluded that ‘supplementary aids and services may be provided in a variety of academic

17

and nonacademic settings’ (Doc. 75-1 at 11) and that Oskowis’s arguments on this issue

18

didn’t state a claim as a matter of law.” (Doc. 77 at 13.)

19

3. Cause Of Action III: 17C-DP-053-ADE

20

The third cause of action arose from proceeding 17C-DP-053-ADE, which Oskowis

21

initiated by filing a due process complaint on March 2, 2017. (Doc. 17 ¶ 78.) Oskowis

22

alleged the District denied E.O. a FAPE because, between August 5, 2015 and December

23

16, 2015, the District didn’t begin delivering services to E.O. until 9:00 a.m., which “would

24

not allow enough time for the services of the IEP to be adequately delivered.” (Doc. 69-3

25

at 8.)

26

2

27
28

Under the NCLB, a paraprofessional works under the direct supervision of a special
education teacher if (1) “[t]he teacher plans the instructional activities that the
paraprofessional carries out”; (2) “[t]he teacher evaluates the achievement of the students
with whom the paraprofessional is working”; and (3) “[t]he paraprofessional works in close
and frequent physical proximity to the teacher.” 34 C.F.R. § 200.59(c)(2).
-5-

1

The ALJ issued an order on March 10, 2017 dismissing Oskowis’s due process

2

complaint and an order on March 28, 2017 denying reconsideration. (Doc. 75-1 at 14-17.)

3

The March 28 order concluded: “Petitioners’ instant due process complaint fails as a matter

4

of law and should be dismissed. Based on the fact that Petitioners’ previous two complaints

5

on the exact same issue were dismissed, Petitioners knew or should have known that the

6

Complaint does not raise a valid claim under the IDEA. For this reason, Petitioners’ instant

7

due process complaint is deemed to be frivolous.” (Doc. 75-1 at 16.)

8

This Court granted summary judgment on Cause of Action III in favor of the

9

District. (Doc. 77 at 14-15.) The Court reasoned that, even if “the District didn’t begin

10

delivering services to E.O. until 9:00 a.m.” each day, there would still be 1,725 minutes in

11

the school week in which to administer E.O.’s IEP, and the IEP only provided for 1,170

12

minutes of special instruction. (Id.) Thus, Oskowis failed to state a claim as a matter of

13

law.

14

B.

15

The District moves for attorneys’ fees, arguing that Oskowis’s lawsuit was both

16

frivolous and brought for an improper purpose. (Doc. 124.) The District seeks fees for

17

both its defense of Oskowis’s claims and the time spent preparing its fee request. Banda

18

v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 637 F. App’x 335, 336 (9th Cir. 2016) (district

19

court may award “fees on fees”). 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) permits the Court to

20

award “reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs” to a prevailing educational agency

21

against a parent who brought an action “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to

22

cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Thus, for the

23

Court to award fees to the District, it must determine (1) the District was the prevailing

24

party and (2) Oskowis brought the action for an improper purpose. If the Court finds in

25

the affirmative on both those issues, it must assess the reasonableness of the fees sought.

26

Analysis

1. Prevailing Party

27

The District argues it was the prevailing party and Oskowis doesn’t dispute this

28

assertion. The Court agrees. On February 19, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment

-6-

1

to the District on all of Oskowis’s affirmative claims. (Doc. 77). A party that has obtained

2

a judgment on the merits, like the District has here, is a prevailing party under the IDEA.

3

P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 474 F.3d 1165, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “some

4

judicial sanction,” which includes a judgment on the merits, is necessary to be a “prevailing

5

party” under the IDEA); G.M. v. Saddleback Valley Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5947213, *1 n.3

6

(C.D. Cal. 2012) (district that was successful in defending against IDEA action brought by

7

parent was prevailing party).

8

2. Improper Purpose

9

The Court must first determine whether Oskowis’s action was frivolous before it

10

considers whether the action was brought for an improper purpose. R.P. ex rel. C.P. v.

11

Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 1126 (9th Cir. 2011) (“As a matter of law, a

12

non-frivolous claim is never filed for an improper purpose.”).3

13

When determining whether an action was frivolous, the district court should “resist

14

the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because

15

a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without

16

foundation.” C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 784 F.3d 1237, 1245 (9th Cir. 2015)

17

(citation omitted). Accordingly, “[a] case may be deemed frivolous only when the result

18

is obvious or the . . . arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Id. (citation omitted).

19

A case is less likely to be considered frivolous “when there is very little case law on point

20

and a claim raises a novel question.” Id.

21

All three of Oskowis’s causes of action were frivolous. First, Cause of Action I

22

(17C-DP-013-ADE) was wholly without merit. Oskowis’s first claim, that the District

23

wasn’t monitoring E.O.’s progress, was flatly contradicted by Oskowis’s acknowledgment

24

that he had received three progress reports during the 2015-2016 school year. (Doc. 75-1

25

at 5.) His second claim relied on an objectively baseless interpretation of the regulations

26
27
28

3

The standard to determine whether a claim is frivolous under the IDEA is the same
as that employed in civil rights cases and, thus, the Court employs the standard developed
in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22, (1978). R.P., 631 F.3d at
1124-25.
-7-

1

implementing the IDEA that had previously been rejected. The Supreme Court has

2

explained that an educational agency is required to review, and if appropriate, revise a

3

child’s IEP, but not more frequently than each year. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson

4

Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 182 (1982) (“Local or regional

5

educational agencies must review, and where appropriate revise, each child’s IEP at least

6

annually.) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Oskowis had argued that the District was

7

required to amend E.O.’s IEP “as appropriate,” which he asserted was more than once a

8

year. (Doc. 70 at 6-7.) This wasn’t the first time Oskowis had unsuccessfully made this

9

argument—in the administrative proceeding giving rise to this cause of action, the ALJ

10

explained that, during an earlier administrative proceeding (Case No. 14C-DP-006-ADE),

11

an ALJ had rejected Oskowis’s argument that the District failed to revise his IEP “as

12

appropriate.” (Doc. 75-1 at 4.) Thus, Cause of Action I was frivolous.

13

In his response to the District’s motion, Oskowis only identifies one reason why

14

Count I should be deemed non-frivolous—because the underlying ALJ decisions were

15

issued within a day of each other and he suspected this “strong temporal . . . relationship”

16

showed the decisions were issued in retaliation for his filing of complaints against the

17

District with the Arizona Department of Education. (Doc. 128-1 at 10.) This conspiracy

18

theory hardly illustrates that the claims Oskowis was advancing in Count I had a reasonable

19

foundation in fact or law.

20

All three claims in Cause of Action II (16C-DP-066-ADE) were also frivolous.

21

Oskowis’s first two claims, that E.O’s paraprofessional was unqualified and lacked

22

adequate supervision, didn’t have any evidentiary support. Indeed, at a pre-hearing

23

conference during the administrative proceeding, Oskowis “acknowledged . . . that [he]

24

had no information or belief to support [his] allegation that the paraprofessional did not

25

meet the requirements . . . to be considered a qualified paraprofessional” and similarly

26

“offered no basis for [his] allegation that the special education teacher did not properly

27

supervise the paraprofessional.” (Doc. 75-1 at 10-11.) At the same time, the District

28

offered evidence affirmatively showing that E.O.’s paraprofessional was both qualified and

-8-

1

adequately supervised. Nevertheless, Oskowis brought this action appealing the ALJ’s

2

decision. Because Oskowis had no basis to believe that E.O’s paraprofessional was

3

unqualified or inadequately supervised, those claims were frivolous.

4

Oskowis’s third claim in Cause of Action II was frivolous as well. Oskowis’s legal

5

argument that IDEA doesn’t allow a paraprofessional to provide services in a self-

6

contained special education classroom is obviously wrong—the plain language of the

7

statute explicitly provides that “supplementary aids and services” are “aids, services, and

8

other supports that are provided in regular education classes [and] other education-related

9

settings.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.42 (emphasis added).

10

In his response to the District’s motion, Oskowis contends that Count II should be

11

deemed non-frivolous (1) due to the same conspiracy theory he advances with respect to

12

Count I (Doc. 128-1 at 10) and (2) because a litigant’s failure to submit affirmative

13

evidence in support of a claim shouldn’t be viewed as proof the claim was frivolous (id. at

14

11). These arguments are unavailing. As the District persuasively argues in its reply: “The

15

failure to present additional evidence in an IDEA appeal alone does not indicate an

16

improper purpose. However, in the specific context of Cause of Action #2, it very much

17

does. Plaintiff’s claims in Cause of Action #2 in the underlying due process complaint

18

failed because he ‘didn’t have any evidence to show the paraprofessional was unqualified

19

or improperly supervised.’ Yet, he filed this lawsuit, and this Court granted the District’s

20

summary judgment for the same reason. Plaintiff could not have objectively believed that

21

this Court would overrule the ALJ’s decision in the absence of any evidence supporting his

22

claims.” (Doc. 133 at 3, citation omitted.)

23

Finally, Cause of Action III (17C-DP-053-ADE) was frivolous. Oskowis argued

24

that, because E.O.’s bus arrived late to pick him up, there wasn’t enough time in the day to

25

deliver the services required by his IEP. Notably, administrative proceeding 17C-DP-053-

26

ADE was not the first time Oskowis had unsuccessfully argued E.O. was denied a FAPE

27

because his bus was late. (Doc. 75-1 at 16.) Basic math disproves this theory. Even if the

28

bus didn’t arrive until 9:00 a.m. each day, there were still 1,725 minutes of potential

-9-

1

instruction time remaining per week. (Doc. 77 at 15.) E.O.’s IEP only provided for 1,170

2

minutes of special education and related services per week. (Id.) Therefore, Oskowis’s

3

argument that E.O. was deprived of a FAPE was baseless.

4

In his response to the District’s motion, Oskowis contends that Count III should be

5

deemed non-frivolous because the ALJs failed to clearly indicate, in the administrative

6

orders denying his earlier complaints concerning the late bus, that the orders were final

7

judgments. (Doc. 128-1 at 7-9.) But this argument misses the point—Oskowis has not

8

identified any objective reason why he could have reasonably hoped to prevail on this

9

claim.

10

Finally, Oskowis also argues that, in general, his claims couldn’t have been

11

frivolous because the District filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings at

12

the outset of the case (Doc. 38), this motion was stricken due to the District’s failure to

13

meet-and-confer with him before filing it (Doc. 61), and the District thereafter declined to

14

refile it. (Doc. 128-1 at 4-7.) According to Oskowis, “the District’s failure to refile their

15

12(c) Motion is in itself a clear indication that [the] District was acknowledging through

16

inaction that the . . . Amended Complaint actually had claim(s) on which relief could be

17

granted.” (Id. at 6-7.) But there are all sorts of legitimate tactical reasons why the District

18

could have concluded the most efficient way to dispose of Oskowis’s frivolous claims,

19

after its Rule 12(c) motion was stricken, was to proceed to summary judgment. Indeed,

20

the order granting Oskowis’s motion to strike the Rule 12(c) motion noted that the “volume

21

and substance” of the parties’ early motions was “very concerning to the Court in that they

22

are highly indicative of . . . the parties’ general inability to engage in good faith discussions

23

prior to seeking judicial intervention.” (Doc. 61 at 1 n.1.)

24

Having determined the action was frivolous, the Court next considers whether

25

Oskowis brought the action for an improper purpose. IDEA’s improper-purpose prong

26

“comes from another well-established Federal law: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,”

27

R.P., 631 F.3d at 1124, so Rule 11(b) governs the Court’s analysis, C.W., 784 F.3d at 1248.

28

20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) “gives examples of improper purposes, including ‘to

- 10 -

1

harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.’” C.W.,

2

784 F.3d at 1244. “An improper purpose is tested by objective standards and may be found

3

where a motion or paper, other than a complaint, is filed in the context of a persistent

4

pattern of clearly abusive litigation activity.”

5

quotation marks omitted).

Id. at 1248-49 (citations and internal

6

The Court agrees with the District that Oskowis brought this action for the improper

7

purposes of harassing the District and driving up litigation costs. Over the past nine years,

8

Oskowis has initiated 43 separate legal actions against the District. Although it is true, as

9

Oskowis points out in his response, that a handful of those actions resulted in rulings in

10

Oskowis’s favor (Doc. 128-1 at 1-2, 14-15), the overall pattern is one of excessive

11

litigiousness. More important, in this action, Oskowis advanced frivolous, indefensible

12

claims and consistently exhibited harassing litigation tactics. For example, Oskowis filed

13

five motions to strike. (Docs. 21, 32, 39, 88, 110.) “[M]otions to strike often needlessly

14

extend litigation . . . [and] are generally disfavored.” McAllister v. Adecco USA Inc., 2017

15

WL 11151051, *2 (D. Haw. 2017) (citation omitted). Oskowis also opposed the District’s

16

request for a 10-day extension to file a reply in support of its motion for summary

17

judgment. (Doc. 73.)

18

Oskowis’s most blatant gamesmanship occurred with respect to the District’s

19

motion for attorneys’ fees. On April 24, 2019, the Court issued an order holding that the

20

District couldn’t move for attorneys’ fees until a final judgment was entered. (Doc. 101.)

21

In response, the District moved to dismiss its counterclaims so there could be a final

22

judgment. (Doc. 104.) In response, Oskowis stated he would “consent to the dismissal of

23

the District’s counterclaims, if the District’s counterclaims [were] dismissed with

24

prejudice.” (Doc. 105 at 2.) Oskowis explained that he was “concerned if the District fails

25

to prevail to collect attorney fees under Rule 54 and that the current counterclaims are

26

dismissed without prejudice, that the District can pursue the current counterclaims for

27

attorney fees again either in federal or state court.” (Id.) The Court considered Oskowis’s

28

concerns and dismissed the District’s counterclaims with prejudice, but specifically noted

- 11 -

1

in its dismissal order that the District could still file a motion for attorneys’ fees “[w]ithin

2

14 days of entry of judgment.” (Doc. 107.) After the District timely filed such a motion,

3

Oskowis moved to strike, arguing that the Court had “granted [his] request that the

4

District’s counterclaims be dismissed with prejudice,” which “effectively precludes the

5

District from seeking attorney’s fees and costs.” (Doc. 110 at 1-2.) In hindsight, Oskowis’s

6

offer to consent to dismissal with prejudice appears to have been an attempt to trick the

7

District into agreeing to seek dismissal, so that Oskowis could then argue the with-

8

prejudice dismissal precluded the District from recovering attorneys’ fees against him.

9
10
11

In sum, Oskowis’s tactics in litigating this case demonstrate he brought this action
for the improper purposes of harassing the District and driving up litigation costs.
3. Reasonableness Of Attorney Fees

12

The District seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $47,627.54 for defending this

13

action and seeking attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 133 at 7.) Pursuant to the Court’s June 24, 2019

14

order, the District provided the Court with an electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

15

“containing an itemized statement of legal services with all information required by Local

16

Rule 54.2(e)(1).” (Doc. 107 at 2.) In response, Oskowis indicated in the spreadsheet his

17

objections to each contested entry. The District then provided responses to Oskowis’s

18

objections and voluntarily reduced some of the entries. The final version of the spreadsheet

19

is provided as an attachment to this order.

20

“The burden of establishing entitlement to an attorneys’ fees award lies solely with

21

the claimant. . . . Where the documentation is inadequate, the district court is free to reduce

22

an applicant’s fee award accordingly.” Trustees of Directors Guild of Am.-Producer

23

Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 427 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of

24

reh’g, 255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000); see also LRCiv. 54.2(e)(2) (“If the time descriptions

25

are incomplete, or if such descriptions fail to adequately describe the service rendered, the

26

court may reduce the award accordingly.”).

27

The Court has reviewed each contested billing entry. Rather than address each one

28

individually, which would unnecessarily lengthen this opinion (there are more than 200

- 12 -

1

contested entries), the Court has organized the entries into categories.

2

a. Duplicate Time Entries

3

Oskowis identifies several time entries that he argues are duplicates.4 The District

4

acknowledges that many of those time entries are duplicates, due to “an error in

5

transcription from the billing statement to the Excel spread sheet.” (Doc. 133 at 4.) The

6

Court will not award fees for the duplicates.

7

The District has indicated that the remaining contested entries, reference numbers

8

91-92, 882, 1034, and 1039, are multiple entries for tasks that were done over a continuing

9

period of time, rather than duplicates. Specifically, reference numbers 882, 1034, and 1039

10

all relate to drafting the motion for summary judgment and the reply, which the District

11

argues it “researched, drafted, and revised over the course of several days if not weeks.”

12

(Id. at 5.) The Court is satisfied those entries aren’t duplicates, so it won’t remove them as

13

such.

14

b. Excessive Or Unnecessary Time Entries

15

Oskowis objects to 15 entries as “excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary.”

16

(Doc. 128-1 at 12.)5 He argues that certain individuals “never billed for less than 0.2 of an

17

hour, even for those time entries that would reasonably take less than 0.1 of an hour (or 6

18

minutes) to do so.” (Id.)

19

The District has voluntarily deleted reference number 970. The District has also

20

voluntarily reduced reference numbers 12, 27, 58, 70, 216, 217, 249, 840, 908, and 1062.

21

The District’s reduction of each of these reference numbers (most by .1) is sufficient. As

22

for two other challenged entries—reference numbers 225 and 609—the District notes these

23

entries had “already been discounted by 50 percent.” The District’s reduction of the entries

24

by half is sufficient.

25
26
27
28

Finally, the District contends that reference numbers 90 (Review Notice of Service
4

The time entries at issue are reference numbers 26, 91-92, 373, 391, 399, 404-406,
411-413, 421-423, 442, 451, 461, 529, 544, 619, 621, 634, 735, 767, 830, 864, 867, 882,
899, 901, 909, 1034, 1039, 1043-1044, and 1048.
5
The time entries at issue are reference numbers 12, 27, 58, 70, 90, 158, 216, 217,
225, 249, 609, 840, 908, 970, and 1062.
- 13 -

1

of Amended Complaint: .2 hours) and 158 (E-mail M. Oskowis regarding scheduling: .2

2

hours) aren’t excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. The Court agrees that these

3

fees are reasonable.

4

c. Vague Time Entries

5

Oskowis argues that more than 200 of the District’s time entries are “[l]acking

6

appropriate detail” pursuant to LRCiv 54.2(e)(2). The Court has reviewed each entry for

7

sufficiency under the local rules.

8

First, there are 15 entries related to telephone calls or telephone conferences that fail

9

to provide sufficient details. The Local Rules provide that, when seeking attorneys’ fees

10

for telephone conferences, the “time entry must identify all participants and the reason for

11

the telephone call.” LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(A). Fourteen of the telephone entries don’t include

12

the subject matter of the conversation6 and one fails to identify the counterparty.7 The

13

Court will not award fees for these 15 entries.

14

Next, there are approximately 40 entries related to drafting or reviewing emails or

15

letters that fail to provide sufficient details. Although the local rules don’t provide an

16

explanatory example for how emails or letters should be documented in an attorneys’ fee

17

motion, the closest parallel is telephone conferences. See LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(A). Thus, the

18

Court will not grant attorneys’ fees for email/letter time entries that don’t identify to whom

19

the email/letter was sent8 or the subject matter of the email/letter.9

20
6

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Those entries are reference numbers 8, 26, 28, 32, 168, 459, 599, 603, 606, 619,
623, 626, 673, and 863.
7
That entry is reference number 1016.
8
The email/letter time entries without a listed recipient are reference numbers 716,
924, and 998.
9
The email/letter time entries without the subject matter listed are reference numbers
1, 25, 30, 46, 48, 50, 52-55, 64, 93, 137, 286, 395, 504, 592, 605, 620, 624, 627-628, 752,
798, 805, 809, 826, 868, 875-876, 883-884, 890, 898, 920, 1040, 1061, and 1089. Some
of these entries were voluntarily deleted by the District. As to the remaining entries,
although the District argues that some of the emails and letters are protected by attorneyclient privilege, the District could have indicated the subject matter of the emails/letters
without violating that privilege. Stein v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., 2014 WL 12695385,
*2 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (“The attorney-client privilege attaches to the content of the
communications between the client and attorney, not the fact or general topic of the
confidential communication.”).
- 14 -

1

There are approximately 40 entries related to reviewing various documents. In 30

2

of those entries, the District indicated that it reviewed various documents filed with the

3

Court or otherwise provided sufficient detail regarding exactly what was reviewed. See,

4

e.g., reference number 166 (“Review Joint Statement and Oskowis’ response”); reference

5

number 891 (“Review joint report and good faith settlement talks”); reference number 939

6

(“Read MO’s due process complaint”). The Court will award attorneys’ fees for those

7

entries.10 The Court deems insufficient, however, those entries in which the District didn’t

8

make clear what exactly it reviewed.11

9

The largest category of time entries relates to drafting, revising, and editing various

10

documents filed with the Court. This category includes 105 entries. When seeking

11

attorneys’ fees for preparing pleadings or other papers, LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(C) requires that

12

the time entry “identify the pleading, paper or other document prepared and the activities

13

associated with its preparation.” Each of the 105 entries indicates the document being

14

prepared and associated task (i.e., drafting, revising, editing, finalizing). The Court will

15

therefore award attorneys’ fees for those tasks.12

16

Finally, there are some miscellaneous time entries. For example, there are four

17

entries related to fact development. Three of those entries—reference numbers 117, 239,

18

and 865—specify the document for which the fact investigation was being conducted. The

19

Court will award attorneys’ fees for those entries. However, the Court won’t award

20

attorneys’ fees for reference number 704, which merely states “strategy and fact finding.”

21

Next, there are three entries related to research. LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(B) requires that those

22

10

23
24
25
26
27
28

Those entries are reference numbers 22, 166, 311, 327, 330, 369, 371, 591, 602,
607, 608, 611, 618, 622, 625, 635, 686, 810, 819, 827, 851, 853, 854, 891, 900, 906, 917,
939, 973, and 984.
11
Those entries are reference numbers 84, 361-362, 523, 598, 703, 717, 731, 907, 928,
and 1054. The District has already voluntarily deleted some of those.
12
Those entries are reference numbers 20, 42, 59, 67, 76, 79, 80, 82, 96, 102, 116,
139, 141, 143, 147, 153, 160, 113, 164, 174, 176, 177, 182, 186, 198, 209, 232, 235, 240,
241, 242, 243, 248, 257, 258, 259, 263, 372, 376, 402, 414, 443, 488, 490, 494, 498, 524,
530, 531, 536, 539, 550, 541, 581, 584, 604, 672, 693, 733, 734, 751, 768, 796, 797, 807,
849, 888, 889, 922, 948, 951, 954, 961, 962, 963, 969, 971, 972, 974, 975, 976, 979, 986,
987, 988, 993, 995, 996, 1020, 1027, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1047, 1049, 1059, 1060,
1071, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1088, 1092, and 1094.
- 15 -

1

entries “identify the specific legal issue researched and, if appropriate, . . . identify the

2

pleading or document the preparation of which occasioned the conduct of the research.”

3

None of the research entries “identify the specific legal issue researched.”13 And reference

4

numbers 305, 307, 328, 385, and 866 are either too vague or do not make clear what exactly

5

was done. Accordingly, the Court won’t award attorneys’ fees for those time entries.

6

d. Other Objections

7

Oskowis objects to several entries as “block billing.”14 The Court will not reduce

8

the fees based on this objection. First, to the extent these entries were deficient for other

9

reasons, the Court has already addressed those deficiencies and reduced the fees

10

accordingly. Second, as the District indicated in some of its responses, many of the entries

11

at issue were not actually block-billing. Third, Oskowis has not pointed to a rule or any

12

case law categorically prohibiting block-billing—although the Ninth Circuit has stated that

13

“block billing makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on particular

14

activities,” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007), because the

15

entries provided sufficient detail regarding the various tasks that were performed, the fact

16

that the tasks are included in a single entry does not render the entries deficient.

17

Oskowis also objects to several entries on the basis that “[i]nter-office

18

communications should not be billed.”15 He contends “[c]ommunications within a law

19

firm, regarding the case, whether personal, phone, or email should be part of doing business

20

and thus part of the firm[’]s overhead.” (Doc. 128-1 at 13.) The Court rejects this

21

objection. Oskowis does not cite any rule or case law in support of this objection and the

22

Court finds this is a proper task for attorneys to bill.

23
24
25

13

Those entries are reference numbers 255, 1032, and 1072.
Those entries are reference numbers 57, 63, 85, 101, 116, 136, 139, 163, 166, 193,
200, 213, 234, 383, 432, 437, 478, 491, 493, 496, 524, 552, 553, 556, 586, 591, 598, 635,
672, 686, 751, 876, 891, 906, 931, 951, 953, 965, 968, 976, 987, 989, 990, 991, 994, 1034,
1037, 1039, 1074, and 1091.
15
Those entries are reference numbers 218, 360, 370, 382, 496, 610, 799, 877, 930,
942, 943, 945, 951, 978, 983, and 1053.
14

26
27
28

- 16 -

1

e. Total Award

2

After adjusting the amount sought consistent with the reductions identified above,

3

the Court awards the District $41,244.38.16

4

II.

Oskowis’s Motion To Review Taxation Of Costs

5

On July 25, 2019, the District filed an amended bill of costs seeking $574.70. (Doc.

6

119.) These costs include “[f]ees for service of summons and subpoena” ($177.50) and

7

“[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the

8

case” ($397.20). (Id. at 1.) The District attached corresponding receipts. (Id. at 3-4.)

9

Oskowis filed objections to the amended bill of costs. (Doc. 120.) His objections

10

fall into two categories: (1) the District’s alleged costs were not associated with Oskowis’s

11

affirmative claims and were instead only associated with the District’s counterclaims,

12

which the District voluntarily dismissed, and (2) under LRCiv. 54.1(e)(3), a party may not

13

seek deposition costs “associated with a video recording,” so the District cannot seek

14

subpoena or transcript fees related to the video-recorded deposition. (Id. at 3-5.)

15
16

On August 21, 2019, the clerk taxed costs in the amount of $574.70 for the District.
(Doc. 123.)

17

Oskowis moves for the Court to (1) “review the action of the Clerk in taxing costs,

18

on the ground that the nature and amount of costs taxed for service of summons and

19

subpoena, and printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in

20

the case are incorrect and contrary to law,” and (2) “direct[] the Clerk to re-tax and adjust

21

the costs.” (Doc. 129.) The District has filed a response. (Doc. 132.)

22

The motion will be denied. First, that the deposition was used in connection with

23

the District’s counterclaims seeking attorneys’ fees is not a valid basis to object to the

24

deposition costs. Recoverable costs in an IDEA case are those set forth in 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1920. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 297-98 (2006).

26

That statute permits a court to tax as costs “[f]ees of the clerk and marshal,” which the

27

16

28

This number was generated by reducing the total of the adjusted fees, $54,992.50,
by 25 percent, which is what the District had agreed to do in its motion and reply. (Doc.
124-2 at 12; Doc. 133 at 7 n.1.)
- 17 -

1

Local Rules have clarified covers service fees, LRCiv. 54.1(e)(1), as well as “[f]ees for

2

printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case,” 28

3

U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(2). Neither 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) nor 28 U.S.C. § 1920 limits

4

costs to those incurred in connection with defending against the opposing party’s claims.

5

Here, the costs the District is seeking could be characterized as incurred in connection with

6

litigating the District’s counterclaims or in seeking attorneys’ fees. Oskowis has not cited,

7

and the Court is not aware of, any authority prohibiting the Court from awarding such costs.

8

Thus, the Court will not deny the District’s request for costs on that basis.

9

The Court also rejects Oskowis’s second objection—that the District’s deposition

10

costs are not recoverable because they were incurred in connection with a videotaped

11

deposition. LRCiv. 54.1(e)(3), the provision addressing taxable deposition costs, states

12

that “[c]osts associated with a video recording are not taxable.” Notably, it does not state

13

that all costs associated with a videotaped deposition are not taxable.

14

interpretation of that provision is that costs incurred in connection with a videotaped

15

deposition, other than those associated with the actual recording of the deposition, remain

16

taxable. The District provided in its response that it contacted the deposition reporting

17

service to determine why the invoice states “Rate Reflects Videotaped Deposition” and

18

learned it was charged 25 cents more per page for transcription because the deposition was

19

videotaped. (Doc. 132 at 3.) Thus, the District has agreed to decrease the costs it is seeking

20

by $17.50, which is equal to the number of pages of the transcript (70) multiplied by 25

21

cents.

22

challenging this concession.

23
24

The logical

This seems reasonable to the Court, and Oskowis chose not to file a reply

Thus, the clerk of court is directed to amend its taxation order to tax costs for the
District in the amount of $557.20.

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

- 18 -

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

(1)

3
4
5

The District’s amended motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 124) is granted in

part and denied in part;
(2)

Oskowis’s motion to review taxation of costs (Doc. 129) is granted in part

and denied in part;

6

(3)

Oskowis must pay the District $41,244.38 in attorneys’ fees; and

7

(4)

The clerk of court is directed to amend its taxation order to tax costs for the

8
9

District in the amount of $557.20.
Dated this 9th day of October, 2019.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 19 -

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

1

4/19/2017 PMH

2

4/19/2017 ADI

4
5
7

4/20/2017 PMH
4/20/2017 ADI
4/24/2017 PMH

8

4/24/2017 PMH

9

4/24/2017 ADI

12

4/25/2017 ADI

13

4/25/2017 ADI

14

4/25/2017 ADI

15

4/25/2017 ADI

16

4/25/2017 ADI

17
18

Description
Review email from G. Staton and 
respond (2X).
Review emails from Georgia Staton 
regarding new Complaint.
Review acceptance of service; email 
District.
Review venue requirement.
Review complaint/file.
Telephone conference with G. Staton 
and G. Lewis.
Review service of process and 
authorization policy.

Draft Notice of Appearance.
Telephone conference with Kacey 
Gregson regarding outstanding 
decisions.
Draft letter to Matthew Oskowis 
regarding assignment of case.
Review docket and Magistrate Judge 
jurisdiction consent form.

Hours

Amount

Revised 
The District's Response Hours
The description of the 
service is adequate.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  Moreover, attorney work 
product.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.40 $            80.00 N

 Revised 
Charge 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

0.40 $            80.00 N
0.30 $            52.50 N
1.00 $          200.00 N

 $          80.00 
 $          52.50 
 $        200.00 

0.60 $          120.00 N

The description of the 
service is adequate.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  Moreover, attorney work 
product.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            35.00 N

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          35.00 
Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1

0.1  $          17.50 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

4/25/2017 PMH
4/25/2017 ADI

Review FRCP 19 (Required Joinder).
Telephone conference with M. 
Remus regarding service of 
complaint.
Review FRCP 13 (Counterclaims).

0.20 $            40.00 N
0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          40.00 
 $          26.25 

19

4/25/2017 PMH

Review Trust Documents and sign.

0.20 $            20.00 Y

20

4/26/2017 ADI

0.80 $          140.00 N

21

4/27/2017 ADI

Draft Answer to Complaint.
Draft letter to Plaintiff Parent 
regarding Waiver of Service and 
Defect of Complaint.

22

4/27/2017 PMH

23

4/27/2017 ADI

24

4/27/2017 PMH

Review answer.
Revise letter to Plaintiff Parent 
regarding waiver and conferral.
Review letter to M. Oskowis 
regarding notice.

0.60 $          105.00 N

0.40 $            80.00 N

The description of the 
Lacking appropriate detail.  service provided is 
adequate.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of the 
Lacking appropriate detail.  service provided is 
adequate.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          20.00 

 $        140.00 

 $        105.00 

 $          80.00 

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          60.00 

25

4/27/2017 PMH

Review email from M. Remus and 
letter.

0.30 $            60.00 N

26

4/27/2017 PMH

Telephone conference with M. 
Wright.

0.30 $            60.00 N

The description of the 
service provided is 
Lacking appropriate detail.  adequate.  Moreover, 
attorney client privilege
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge #33 spread sheet.

27

4/27/2017 PMH

Review and sign waiver of service.

0.20 $            40.00 N

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

0.20 $            40.00 N

The description of the 
service provided is 
Lacking appropriate detail.  adequate.  Moreover, 
attorney client privilege.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

28

4/27/2017 PMH

29

4/27/2017 ADI

Telephone conference with M. 
Remus.
Review Order discouraging 12(b) 
Motions.

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1

0.20 $            35.00 N

30

4/27/2017 ADI

Review email from Michael Remus 
and departure letter.

0.20 $            35.00 N

31

4/27/2017 ADI

Facts investigation regarding service, 
venue, counterclaim and joinder

 $          35.00 
The description of the 
service provided is 
Lacking appropriate detail.  adequate.  Moreover, 
attorney client privilege.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.40 $            35.00 Y

32

37

4/27/2017 ADI

Telephone Conference with 
Matthew Wright

0.30 $            26.25 Y

4/28/2017 ADI

Review complaint and Orders of 
Dismissal in 17C‐DP‐044‐ADE, 17C‐
DP‐048‐ADE, and 17C‐DP‐053‐ADE

0.80 $          140.00 N

0.1  $          20.00 

 $          35.00 
The description of the 
service provided is 
Lacking appropriate detail.  adequate.  Moreover, 
attorney client privilege.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        140.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

38

4/28/2017 ADI

39

4/28/2017 ADI

40

4/28/2017 PMH

41

4/28/2017 ADI

Description
Review Complaint and Order of 
Dismissal in 16C‐DP‐066‐ADE.
Review Complaint and Order of 
Dismissal in 17C‐DP‐013‐ADE.
Letter to Oskowis with Waiver of 
Service.
Review 34 CFR 300.577 related to 
award of attorneys' fees against a 
parent.

42
43

4/28/2017 ADI
4/28/2017 PMH

Draft Counterclaim.
Review draft counterclaim.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $          87.50 

0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          60.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

2.50 $          218.75 Y
0.40 $            40.00 Y

Draft letter to Superintendent

0.20 $            17.50 Y

47

5/5/2017 ADI

Review Federal #1 Order regarding 
ALJ delay in issuance of decision.

0.50 $            87.50 N

48

5/5/2017 PMH

49

5/5/2017 ADI

5/5/2017 ADI

Revise and finalize letter to 
Superintendent

 Revised 
Charge 
 $          87.50 

5/4/2017 ADI

50

Revised 
Hours

0.50 $            87.50 N

46

Review email from M. Oskowis and 
respond.
Review email from Matt Oskowis 
regarding conferral.

The District's Response

0.30 $            60.00 N

The description of the 
service is adequate.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  Morever, this charge has 
been cut in half.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        218.75 
 $          40.00 

The description of the 
service provided is 
adequate.  Moreover, 
attorney client privilege.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of the 
service is adequate.  
Because Plaintiff was a 
party to the email 
Lacking appropriate detail.  reviewed, he is aware of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
its contents.

0.20 $            35.00 N

0.60 $            52.50 Y

 $          35.00 

 $          87.50 

 $          35.00 
The description of the 
service provided is 
adequate.  Moreover, 
attorney client privilege.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Ms. Fabian believes the 

5/9/2017 PMH

Review and revise letters.
Review email from G. Staton firm 
and respond.

0.20 $            40.00 N

5/9/2017 ADI

Review email.

0.20 $            35.00 N

date of this entry must 
have been transcribed 
incorrectly because the 
motion for summary 
judgment was not yet 
pending.  Regardless, the 
District has deleted this 
Legal representative not 
entry.
engaged at this time.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The District has deleted 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
this entry.
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Work product privilege
Lacking appropriate detail.  The District has deleted 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
this entry.
The description of the 
service is adequate.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  Moreover, it involves 
attorney client privilege.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

51

5/8/2017 VF

52

5/8/2017 PMH

53
54

Revise motions for summary 
judgment.

1.20 $          210.00 N
0.40 $            80.00 N

55

5/12/2017 PMH

Review email and respond to 
District.

0.30 $            60.00 N

56

5/12/2017 ADI

Draft letter to Matthew Oskowis 
regarding dates/times for conferral.

0.30 $            52.50 N

57

5/16/2017 PMH

Review Waiver of Service; telephone 
conference with M. Remus.

0.30 $            60.00 N

58

5/16/2017 PMH

59

5/16/2017 ADI

60

5/16/2017 ADI

61

5/16/2017 ADI

Sign Notice of Appearance.
Finalize Notice of Appearance for 
filing.
Review Notice of Service and filing of 
Waiver of Summons.
Review local rules and draft judge 
election form.

0.20 $            40.00 N
0.20 $            35.00 N

Block billing

The description is specific 
enough to determine 
whether a reasonable 
amount of time was 
billed.  

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1
The description of the 
service is adequate

0  $                 ‐   
0  $                 ‐   

0  $                 ‐   

 $          52.50 

 $          60.00 

0.1  $          20.00 
 $          35.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

63

5/17/2017 PMH

64

5/17/2017 PMH

65

Description

Review file, court order, OSC against 
M. Oskowis; prepare for conferral 
meeting with M. Oskowis; 
conference with M. Oskowis.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.70 $          140.00 N

5/17/2017 PMH

Review emails and amendment; 
email district.
Review M. Oskowis' amended 
complaint.

66

5/17/2017 ADI

0.30 $            52.50 N

67

5/17/2017 ADI

68

5/17/2017 ADI

70

5/18/2017 PMH

71

5/18/2017 ADI

73

5/24/2017 PMH

75

All of the activities in this 
billing relate to preparing 
for a conference with Mr. 
Oskowis.  Therefore it is 
not impermissible block 
billing. 
Block billing
The description of the 
services is adequate.  
Counsel finished her 
review of the amended 
Lacking appropriate detail.  complaint and then 
notified her client.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.40 $            80.00 N

Telephone conference with Matt 
Oskowis regarding meet and confer 
over 12(b) dismissal issue.

The District's Response

Draft response to Plaintiff regarding 
first Amended Complaint.
Review proposed first Amended 
Complaint submitted by Plaintiff.

0.50 $          100.00 N

0.30 $            52.50 N

5/29/2017 PMH

0.80 $          160.00 N

76
77
78

5/30/2017 ADI
5/30/2017 ADI
5/30/2017 ADI

Draft Answer to First Amended 
Complaint.
Research 12(f) Motions to Strike.
Review Complaint.

3.00 $          525.00 N
0.50 $            87.50 N
0.40 $            70.00 N

79

5/31/2017 ADI

Revise Answer to Complaint.

1.00 $          175.00 N

80

5/31/2017 ADI

Draft Defendant's Affirmative 
Defenses.

0.60 $          105.00 N

81

5/31/2017 ADI

Draft jurisdictional section and 
background section of Counterclaim.

Because Plaintiff 
reviewed the response 
the District sent him 
regarding the first 
amended complaint, 
Lacking appropriate detail.  Plaintiff is aware of the 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
details of this work.

82
84

5/31/2017 ADI
6/2/2017 PMH

85
87

6/6/2017 PMH
6/7/2017 PMH

90

6/9/2017 ADI

 $          52.50 

 $          52.50 

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1

0.1  $          20.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          60.00 

Draft Prayer for Relief and revise 
Counterclaim.

2.00 $          175.00 Y

Review electronic filing.

0.30 $            60.00 N

Review emails, answer and 
counterclaim.
Review Amended Complaint.
Review Notice of Service of 
Amended Complaint.

 $        140.00 

 $          35.00 

0.70 $            61.25 Y

0.20 $            40.00 N

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          80.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

Review Petitioner's request to 
transfer from Magistrate.
Review latest filings from Plaintiff 
(i.e., judge election form) and court 
docket entry.
Review M. Oskowis' Motion to 
Amend.
Review Petitioner's Motion for Leave 
to Amend.

Revised 
Hours

0.20 $            20.00 Y
0.50 $          100.00 N
0.20 $            35.00 N

The description of the 
Lacking appropriate detail.  service provided is 
adequate.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The description of the 
Lacking appropriate detail.  service provided is 
adequate.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The description of the 
Lacking appropriate detail.  service provided is 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
adequate 

 $        160.00 

 $        525.00 
 $          87.50 
 $          70.00 

 $        175.00 

 $        105.00 

 $          61.25 
The description of the 
service provided is 
adequate.  Furthermore, 
this entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail.  The District has deleted 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
this entry.

Block billing
Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

This entry was for the 
review of the answer and 
amended counterclaim 
and associated activities.  
Thus, it is not 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, this 
entry has already been 
halved.

 $        175.00 
0  $                 ‐   

 $          20.00 
 $        100.00 
 $          35.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

Description

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

91
92

6/12/2017 PMH
6/13/2017 PMH

Review revised Amended Complaint.
Review Amended Complaint.

0.80 $          160.00 N
0.40 $            80.00 N

93

6/13/2017 EAP

0.30 $            58.50 N

96

6/14/2017 PMH

100

6/15/2017 ADI

101

6/15/2017 ADI

Review emails, reply
Review Answer to First Amended 
Complaint and Counterclaim and 
redraft.
Review Plaintiff's Motion to Amend 
Complaint and Court's Order 
granting Motion.
Review Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure 15 and calculate 
extension for filing Answer.

0.20 $            35.00 N

102
103

6/16/2017 ADI
6/19/2017 ADI

Revise Counterclaim.
Review Answer and Counterclaim.

0.30 $            26.25 Y
1.20 $          105.00 Y

104

6/19/2017 ADI

Review transcript from previous due 
process hearing regarding plaintiff's 
comments about Trina Spencer.

0.40 $            35.00 Y

116

6/20/2017 PMH

117

6/20/2017 ADI

118

6/20/2017 PMH

Review revised Answer and 
Counterclaim and revise both.
Facts investigation regarding 
responses in Answer.
Review Revisions to Answer and 
Counterclaim.

1.00 $          100.00 Y

The District's Response

This is not a duplicative 
entry.  Counsel was 
simply continuing her 
review of the first 
amended complaint.  A 
total of 1.7 hours was 
spent reviewing Plaintiff's 
first amended complaint.  
Duplicate of #87
Duplicate of #87
See above
Lacking appropriate detail.  The District has deleted 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
this entry.
Block billng. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  The description of 
54.2(e)(2)
services is inadequate.  

0.30 $            52.50 N

1.30 $          260.00 N
0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          52.50 

Block billing
This is not block billing.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is inadequate.  

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

This is not block billing as 
both entries relate to the 
same document.
The description of 
services is adequate.

6/30/2017 ADI
6/30/2017 PMH

0.30 $            26.25 Y
0.80 $            80.00 Y

135

7/3/2017 ADI

Review Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.

0.40 $            35.00 Y

136

7/5/2017 PMH

Review Rule 16 Scheduling Order and 
M. Oskowis' email.

0.40 $            80.00 N

137

7/5/2017 PMH

Email M. Oskowis.

0.20 $            40.00 N

7/5/2017 ADI

Review email from Plaintiff regarding 
scheduling Rule 16 Conference and 
status of settlement negotiations.

142

7/10/2017 ADI

Draft Response to Plaintiff's Motion 
to Strike.
Review Responses to Plaintiff's 
Motions to Strike Affirmative 
Defenses in Fed. #3.

 $        260.00 
 $          35.00 

 $          35.00 
There are only two 
entries for a short period 
of time, which would 
reasonably take .4 hours.
Block billing
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Plaintiff was a party to 
Lacking appropriate detail.  this email and can review 
how long it was.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            35.00 N

7/10/2017 ADI

 $          35.00 

 $          26.25 
 $          80.00 

133
134

141

 $          26.25 
 $        105.00 

 $          35.00 

Review local rules regarding Motions 
to Strike and time to file response; 
calculate deadline for filing response
Review Oskowis' Motion to Strike.

7/10/2017 ADI

 $          35.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

6/30/2017 ADI

140

 $        100.00 

 $          17.50 

132

7/10/2017 PMH

0  $                 ‐   

0.20 $            17.50 Y

6/27/2017 ADI

139

 $        160.00 
 $          80.00 

 $          50.00 

131

Review and finalize Answer and 
Counterclaim.
Review cases cited by Plaintiff in 
Motion to Strike.

 Revised 
Charge 

0.50 $            50.00 Y

Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 regarding 
timeline for answering a 
countercliam and calculate deadline.
Review Order Setting Rule 16 
Scheduling Conference.

138

Revised 
Hours

0.40 $            40.00 Y

 $          35.00 

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate and 
is not impermisslbe block 
billing.  Furthermore, the 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

0.40 $            35.00 Y

0.90 $            78.75 Y

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          80.00 

 $          40.00 
 $          35.00 

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          78.75 

 $          17.50 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

143

7/11/2017 ADI

146

7/12/2017 ADI

Description

Revise Response to Motion to Strike.
Review Plaitniff's Answer to 
Defendant's Counterclaim.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

1.00 $            87.50 Y

The District's Response

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  had already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.30 $            26.25 Y

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          87.50 
 $          26.25 

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

7/12/2017 ADI

Finalize draft Response to Plaintiff's 
Motion to Strike.

0.60 $            52.50 Y

149

7/13/2017 ADI

Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 
availability for discovery scheduling 
conference pursuant to Court Order 
and the Fed. R. Civ. P.

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

150
151

7/13/2017 PMH
7/13/2017 PMH

Review letter regarding conference 
meet and confer dates.
Review Oskowis' Answer.

0.20 $            40.00 N
0.60 $            60.00 Y

 $          40.00 
 $          60.00 

152

7/13/2017 PMH

Review Response to Motion to Strike

0.50 $            50.00 Y

153

7/13/2017 ADI

Finalize for filing with the court the 
District's Response to Plaintiff's 
Motion to Strike.

0.50 $            43.75 Y

154

7/13/2017 TM

157

7/14/2017 PMH

147

Review Attorney Ivan's Citations and 
Shepardize cases in Motion to Strike.
Review proposed Joint Case 
Management Plan and revise.

158
159

7/18/2017 PMH
7/19/2017 PMH

160

7/21/2017 ADI

161

7/21/2017 ADI

E‐mail M. Oskowis regarding 
scheduling.
Review conference meeting dates.
Draft Joint Proposed Case 
Management Plan ( Defendant's 
portion) pursuant to Court's Order 
Setting Rule 16 Scheduling 
Conference.
Review Rule 26 regarding initial 
disclosure obligations in relation to 
Counterclaim.

7/21/2017 ADI

Review Rules 16 and 26 regarding 
discovery of electronically stored 
information and assertions of 
privilege or protected work product.

162

163

7/24/2017 ADI

164

7/25/2017 PMH

Revise draft Joint Proposed Case 
Management Plan and email to 
Plaintiff regarding same in 
anticipation of conference.
Review and finalize proposed Joint 
Case Management Plan.

7/25/2017 DA

Draft name and contact information 
portion of Defendant's Initial 
Discovery pleading.

165

166

7/26/2017 PMH

Review Joint Statement and Oskowis' 
response.

167

7/26/2017 PMH

Telephone Conference with M. 
Oskowis regarding Joint Statement.

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
has already been 
Lacking appropriate detail.  discounted by 50 
percent..
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.50 $            26.25 Y

4.00 $          700.00 N

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.40 $            80.00 N

 $        700.00 

 $          26.25 
The description of 
services is adequate.  It is 
not impermissible block 
billing as all entries relate 
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  to the joint case 
management plan.
54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0.30 $            15.75 Y

1.00 $          200.00 N

 $          40.00 
 $          40.00 

 $          35.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          43.75 

 $        200.00 
This entry is not 
excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.  
It involved not only 
writing the words in the 
email to Plaintiff but also 
thinking about what 
should be in that email.

0.40 $            35.00 Y

1.40 $          245.00 N

 $          50.00 

 $          26.25 

1.00 $          200.00 N

0.20 $            40.00 N
0.20 $            40.00 N

 $          52.50 

 $        245.00 
 $          60.00 

 $          15.75 

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.  It is 
not impermissible block 
billing as all entries relate 
to the joint case 
management plan.

 $        200.00 

 $          80.00 

Ref # Date

168

169

170

Time 
Keeper

 Revised 
Charge 

0.40 $            80.00 N

7/26/2017 ADI

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

7/26/2017 ADI

Telephone conference with Matthew 
Oskowis to discuss Joint Proposed 
Case Management Plan.

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

8/1/2017 ADI

176

8/1/2017 ADI

177

8/4/2017 PMH

178

Draft Defendant's Initial Disclosure 
pleading.
Revise Defendant's portion of draft 
Joint Proposed Case Management 
Plan.

Draft Notice of Service of Initial 
Disclosures.

1.50 $          131.25 Y

The description of the 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        131.25 

0.50 $            87.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          87.50 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

8/4/2017 PMH

Review and revise answer.
Review for documents to add to 
answer.

8/4/2017 ADI

Revise Defendant's Initial Disclosures 
with remaining witness address and 
phone contact information.

0.40 $            35.00 Y

8/5/2017 PMH

8/7/2017 ADI

185

8/8/2017 ADI

186

8/8/2017 ADI

187

8/8/2017 ADI

188

8/8/2017 TM

192

8/9/2017 ADI

8/9/2017 ADI

8/10/2017 ADI

200

8/14/2017 ADI

201

8/14/2017 ADI

Review and revise Joint Statement.
Review files for initial disclosures 
and identify documentation in 
support of claim for attornes' fees to 
be copied.
Review files and identify 
documentation for initial disclosures 
to support counterclaim for 
attorneys's fees.
Finalize review of remaining files and 
identification of documents in 
support of claim.
Review and finalize initial disclosures 
(documents and formal 
correspondences).
Compile and Organize E‐mails for 
Counter Claim.
Review and finalize emails to be 
released with Defendant's Initial 
Disclosures.

Finalize Attorney Fee and cost 
computations and initial disclosure 
pleading and sign same.

Revise and finalize for filing Notice of 
Service of Defendant's Initial 
Disclosures.

Finalize Proposed Joint Case 
Management Plan for Plaintiff's final 
review and approval and email to 
Plaintiff regarding same.
Revise draft Joint Proposed Case 
Management Plan with Plaintiff's 
insertions.

0.50 $          100.00 N

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.30 $            60.00 N

184

198

Revised 
The District's Response Hours
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  Moreover, attorney client 
privilege
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

Halved Billing Issue Identified

Review Plaintiff's proposed revisions 
and insertions into the draft Joint 
Proposed Case Management Plan.

175

193

Amount

Conference with T. Alley and M. 
Remus.

7/28/2017 ADI

182

Hours

7/26/2017 PMH

174

179

Description

0.40 $            80.00 N

 $          26.25 
 $        100.00 
 $          60.00 

 $          35.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          80.00 

0.80 $            70.00 Y

 $          70.00 

1.60 $          140.00 Y

 $        140.00 

1.20 $          105.00 Y

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        105.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

0.70 $            36.75 Y

 $          36.75 

0.80 $            70.00 Y

 $          70.00 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

Block billing

The attorney fee and cost 
computation are part of 
the initial disclosure and 
thus this is not 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, this 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.

 $          17.50 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          17.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N

0.50 $            87.50 N

Block billing

Both entries go to the 
same activity ‐ finalizing 
the case management 
plan.  Thus, this entry is 
not impermissible block 
billing.

 $        105.00 

 $          87.50 

Ref # Date

202

Time 
Keeper

8/14/2017 ADI

Description
Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 
receipt of revisions to Joint Proposed 
Case Management Plan.

203

8/14/2017 ADI

204

8/14/2017 ADI

Review Plaintiff's email with 
revisions to Joint Case Management 
Plan and incorporate therein.
Review email from Rebecca Vess 
regarding current contact 
information and willingness to assist 
District.

8/16/2017 ADI

Review pleadings and draft letter to 
Plaintiff regarding confirmation of 
current mailing address.

205

206

8/17/2017 ADI

207

8/18/2017 ADI

208

8/18/2017 ADI

209

8/18/2017 ADI

210

8/18/2017 ADI

211

8/23/2017 ADI

212

8/27/2017 ADI

213

8/28/2017 ADI

216

8/29/2017 ADI

217

8/29/2017 ADI

218

8/30/2017 PMH

219

8/30/2017 PMH

220

8/30/2017 ADI

222

8/31/2017 PMH

223
224

9/1/2017 PMH
9/1/2017 ADI

225

9/1/2017 ADI

226
227

9/1/2017 ADI
9/8/2017 PMH

E‐mail follow‐up with Plaintiff 
regarding approval of final Joint 
Proposed Case Management Plan.
Draft letter to Superintendent 
regarding submission of Joint 
Proposed Case Management Plan 
and current update.
Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 
filing of Joint Proposed Case 
Management Plan in lieu of 
approval.
Finalize and file Joint Proposed Case 
Management Plan.
Review email from Plaintiff regarding 
approval of Joint Proposed Case 
Management Plan and election to 
file.
Compile necessary documentation 
for creation of pretrial scheduling 
conference notebook and potential 
oral argument on Palintiff's Motion 
to Strike.
Prepare for Pretrial Scheduling 
Conference.

Prepare for and attend Pretrial 
Scheduling Conference.
Review email notice from court 
regarding Plaintiff's change of 
physical mailing address.
Review Minute Entry regarding 
appearance of parties for Rule 16 
Scheduling Conference.

Conference with Attorney Ivan.
Review strategy regarding 
depositions.
Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 
failure to timely serve Plaintiff's 
initial disclosures on Defendant.
Review Order regarding dismissal  of 
some counterclaims.
Review Order regarding affirmative 
defense.
Review Rule 16 Scheduling Order

228

9/10/2017 ADI

Calculate dates set forth in 
Scheduling Order.
Review Court's Order on Plaintiff's 
Motion to Strike.
Review Initial Disclosure
Review Plaintiff's email with list of 
initial disclosures.

229

9/10/2017 ADI

Follow‐up with Plaintiff regarding 
receipt of initial disclosure list.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N

 $        105.00 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N

 $        105.00 

0.40 $            70.00 N
0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          70.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          35.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

0.50 $            43.75 Y

 $          43.75 

1.00 $          175.00 N

 $        175.00 

1.00 $          175.00 N

Block billing

Both entries go to the 
same activity ‐ 
participating in the 
pretrial scheduling 
conference.  Thus, this 
entry is not impermissible 
block billing.

0.20 $            35.00 N

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1

0.1  $          17.50 

0.20 $            35.00 N

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1

0.1  $          17.50 

0.20 $            40.00 N

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the billing of the case 
are properly billed.
be billed.

 $          40.00 

 $        175.00 

0.30 $            30.00 Y

 $          30.00 

0.50 $            43.75 Y

 $          43.75 

0.50 $            50.00 Y

 $          50.00 

0.40 $            80.00 N
0.40 $            35.00 Y

0.30 $            26.25 Y

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

This entry has already 
been discounted by 50 
percent.

 $          80.00 
 $          35.00 

 $          26.25 

0.30 $            26.25 Y
0.50 $            50.00 Y

 $          26.25 
 $          50.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

230

9/14/2017 ADI

232

10/23/2017 ADI

Description
Hours
Amount
Halved Billing Issue Identified
The District's Response
Facts investigation regarding 
Plaintiff's initial discovery and scope 
thereof.
0.20 $            17.50 Y
Revise First Amended Answer to 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
Complaint.
1.00 $          175.00 N
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

10/23/2017 ADI

Draft track changes to First Amended 
Answer to Complaint for filing 
alongside Notice of Filing.

233

234

10/23/2017 ADI

Draft Notice of Filing Amended 
Pleading after review of Local Rules 
of Civil Procedure governing 
amended pleadings.

235

10/25/2017 PMH

Review and Revise counterclaim.

237

10/26/2017 EAP

238

10/26/2017 EAP

239

240

241

242

10/26/2017 ADI

10/26/2017 ADI

10/26/2017 ADI

10/26/2017 PMH

243

10/26/2017 PMH

245

11/1/2017 ADI

246

11/3/2017 ADI

247

11/3/2017 ADI

248

11/5/2017 PMH

249
250

11/6/2017 ADI
11/6/2017 ADI

251

11/8/2017 ADI

252

11/8/2017 PMH

254

11/9/2017 ADI

Study cases from 9th Circuit and 2 
District Court findings on pleadings.
Research regarding standards for 
pleading, fees against parent.
Facts investigation regarding First 
Amended Answer.

1.00 $          175.00 N

0.50 $            87.50 N
1.00 $          100.00 Y

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          17.50 
 $        175.00 

 $        175.00 
These entries all go to the 
same activity ‐ drafting 
notice of filing amended 
pleading ‐ and therefore 
do not constitute 
impermissible block 
Block billing
billing.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.90 $          175.50 N

 $          87.50 
 $        100.00 

 $        175.50 

0.80 $          156.00 N

 $        156.00 

0.30 $            52.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          52.50 

1.30 $          113.75 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        113.75 

0.50 $            43.75 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          43.75 

1.00 $          100.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        100.00 

Review and revise third draft of 
counterclaim and finalize.

3.00 $          300.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        300.00 

Review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures.

0.70 $            61.25 Y

 $          61.25 

0.60 $          105.00 N

 $        105.00 

Revise First Amended Answer and 
Counterclaim.

Finalize for filing First Amended 
Answer and Counterclaim.

Review and revise Amened Answer 
and Counterclaim.

Facts investigation regarding 
underlying claims and case options.
Review confirmation of transfer of 
administrative records to federal 
court in underlying due process 
complaints on appeal.

Review and revise Motion to Strike.
Calclulate deadline to file Response 
to Motion to Strike.
Review Motion to Strike.
Facts investigation regarding Rule 11 
Sanctions related to recent Motion 
to Strike.
Review Motion to Dismiss under 
John's.
Research pro se representation on 
behalf of minor children under 
federal law and 9th Circuit 
precedent.

0.20 $            35.00 N

0.50 $            50.00 Y

0.20 $            17.50 Y
0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          35.00 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The District has 
decreased this entry to .1

 $          50.00 

0.1  $            8.75 
 $          17.50 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

0.40 $            40.00 Y

 $          40.00 

1.40 $          245.00 N

 $        245.00 

Ref # Date

255

257

258

Time 
Keeper

11/10/2017 ADI

11/10/2017 ADI

11/11/2017 ADI

259

11/16/2017 PMH

260

11/16/2017 ADI

262

11/20/2017 ADI

263

11/20/2017 PMH

Description

Research related to Motion to Strike 
Defendant's Amended Counterclaim.

Draft Response to Motion to Strike 
Defendant's Amended Counterclaim.

Revise Response to Motion to Strike 
Defendant's Amended Counterclaim.

Review Motion to Strike and 
Defendant's response; revise 
response.
Finalize for filing the Response to 
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Strike 
and calendar deadline for Plaintiff to 
file reply.
Facts investigation regarding oral 
and written depositions.

Review file and prepare 
counterclaim.
Research remote (i.e., telephonic or 
video‐conferencing) oral depositions 
in federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Review deposition schedule/Court 
Order.
Review deposition requirements of 
Federal Court.

266

11/21/2017 ADI

267

11/21/2017 PMH

269

11/22/2017 PMH

282

11/30/2017 ADI

283

11/30/2017 ADI

Review Notice of Filing/Lodging of 
Administrative Record by Plaintiff.
Review filing by Court regarding 
receipt of Administrative Record.

11/30/2017 ADI

Facts investigation regarding 
timeline for drafting of affidavits and 
deposition of Matthew Oskowis.

284

286

12/1/2017 ADI

287

12/1/2017 ADI

289

12/5/2017 EAP

290

12/6/2017 ADI

295

12/7/2017 EAP

296

12/7/2017 EAP

297

12/7/2017 EAP

298

12/7/2017 EAP

301

12/8/2017 NDS

Draft letter to Trust
Facts investigation regarding 
projected time for affidavits, witness 
consultation, deposition and Motion 
for Summary Judgment.
Research regarding attorneys fees 
standard
Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 
Notice of Intent to file 12© Motion.
Research "improper purpose" under 
IDEA
Research for award of attorneys 
fees, IDEA
Study cases discussing improper 
purpose from around nation
Research regarding "frivolous" case 
under IDEA
Review caselaw on pleading 
standards and 28 USC 1415(i)(3)

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

1.00 $            87.50 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

1.50 $          131.25 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        131.25 

1.00 $            87.50 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          87.50 

1.00 $          100.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        100.00 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

0.60 $            52.50 Y

0.80 $            80.00 Y

 $          52.50 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          80.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

0.30 $            30.00 Y

 $          30.00 

0.50 $            50.00 Y

 $          50.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

0.60 $            52.50 Y

 $          26.25 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Moreover, the content of 
the letter is subject to 
attorney client privilege 
and the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

1.00 $          195.00 N

 $        195.00 

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $          87.50 

2.00 $          390.00 N

 $        390.00 

1.40 $          273.00 N

 $        273.00 

1.40 $          273.00 N

 $        273.00 

1.20 $          234.00 N

 $        234.00 

1.50 $          262.50 N

 $        262.50 

Ref # Date
302

Time 
Keeper

12/8/2017 EAP

303

12/8/2017 EAP

304

12/8/2017 ADI

305

12/8/2017 RGT

306

12/8/2017 EAP

307

12/8/2017 PMH

311

12/11/2017 PMH

313

Description
Study cases finding improper 
purpose
summarize key factors for improper 
purpose, cases where rejected as not 
improper or findings was improper
Facts investigation regarding 
affidavits, prima facie elements, and 
proving counterclaim.

Develop case plan; identify issues 
and response.
Strategy for next steps in Federal #4, 
Affidavits, Motion for Summary 
Judgment

Develop case plan and research 
Memorandum

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

0.50 $            97.50 N

 $          97.50 

0.70 $          136.50 N

 $        136.50 

2.20 $          192.50 Y

 $        192.50 

2.10 $          204.75 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

1.30 $          126.75 Y

 $        126.75 

2.00 $          200.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.80 $            80.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          80.00 

12/12/2017 NDS

Review Request for Discovery.
Review 1/22/16 D.P. transcript of 
Tiffany Wilson testimony.

2.20 $          192.50 Y

 $        192.50 

314

12/12/2017 NDS

Review 1/21/16 transcript testimony 
of Rebecca Vess and Michael Ramus

1.50 $          131.25 Y

 $        131.25 

319

12/14/2017 NDS

2.70 $          236.25 Y

 $        236.25 

320

12/15/2017 NDS

3.00 $          262.50 Y

 $        262.50 

3.00 $          262.50 Y

 $        262.50 

0.40 $            35.00 Y

 $          35.00 

0.60 $            52.50 Y

 $          52.50 

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $          87.50 

321

12/15/2017 NDS

322

12/15/2017 ADI

323

12/15/2017 ADI

326

12/16/2017 NDS

327

12/18/2017 PMH

328

12/18/2017 RGT

329

12/18/2017 NDS

330

12/18/2017 PMH

331

12/18/2017 ADI

336

12/19/2017 EAP

337

12/19/2017 NDS

338

12/19/2017 PMH

344

12/20/2017 NDS

345

12/20/2017 EAP

Review Oskowis Initial Disclosure 
pet873‐936; 1/30/2015 transcript
Review Oskowis initial disclosure: 
pet873‐733
Review Oskowis initial disclosure, 
pet.733‐661; 4/12/2014 transcript of 
Traci Parry.
Review Plaintiff's First Request for 
Production.
Review Local Rules and Rule 34 and 
26 of Fed. R. Civ. P.
Research caselaw on improper 
purpose; Bethleham Sch. Dist. V. 
Zhou

Review notice letter and sign.
Initial determination of elements; 
proof response, use of affidavits.
Review pet. 658‐661, transcripts 
from Nov. 2013 D. P. Proceedings.

Review Request for Production of 
Documents.
Facts regarding objections to 
Request for Production submitted by 
Plaintiff.
Research regarding Zhu case, 
subsequent history.
Review casefile nad notes, organizing 
information for affidavits.
Telephone conference with Sara 
Leon regarding Motion for Summary 
Judgment.
Research caselaw: Rule 11, standard 
of review, sufficiency of allegations, 
IDEA pleading standards.
Review pleadings in Texas fees case, 
research citations

0.40 $            80.00 N
1.90 $          370.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The District has 
decreased this entry to .2
The description of 
services is adequate.  

2.50 $          218.75 Y

0.60 $            60.00 Y

0.2  $          40.00 

 $        218.75 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          60.00 

0.40 $            35.00 Y

 $          35.00 

0.50 $            97.50 N

 $          97.50 

1.50 $          131.25 Y

 $        131.25 

1.00 $          100.00 Y

 $        100.00 

1.50 $          262.50 N

 $        262.50 

0.60 $          117.00 N

 $        117.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

 Revised 
Charge 

346

12/20/2017 ADI

347
348

12/20/2017 EAP
12/20/2017 NDS

Draft summary regarding Zhou case
Draft MSJ: Background info.

0.40 $            78.00 N
1.60 $          280.00 N

 $          78.00 
 $        280.00 

349
353

12/20/2017 NDS
12/22/2017 NDS

4.20 $          735.00 N
1.00 $          175.00 N

 $        735.00 
 $        175.00 

356
357

12/26/2017 NDS
12/26/2017 NDS

2.00 $          350.00 N
0.30 $            52.50 N

 $        350.00 
 $          52.50 

358
359

12/27/2017 NDS
12/28/2017 NDS

Draft MSJ; count 1 of counterclaim.
Edit MSJ: Counterclaims.
Draft MSJ on counterclaims: Intro 
and Conclusion.
Draft MSJ on counterclaims
Edit and Revise MSJ on 
counterclaims: added harassment 
claim.
Revise MSJ: counterclaims

3.00 $          525.00 N
1.00 $          175.00 N

 $        525.00 
 $        175.00 

360

12/28/2017 NDS

Email partners draft of MSJ on 
counterclaims, discussing thoughts 
and strategies moving forward 
regarding Rule 12(c) motion.

1.00 $          175.00 N

361

1/1/2018 PMH

Review extensive research.

0.50 $          100.00 N

362

1/2/2018 PMH

0.30 $            60.00 N

363

1/2/2018 ADI

Review file and e‐mails.
Draft Response to Plaintiff's First 
Request for Production (Preliminary 
Statement, General Objections, and 
Objections to Instructions and 
Definitions).

369

1/3/2018 ADI

Review draft analysis for Motion.

0.30 $            52.50 N

1/3/2018 NDS

Conference with Alex regarding 
supplemental disclosures.

0.20 $            17.50 Y

371

1/3/2018 RGT

Review correspondence and reply.

0.30 $            29.25 Y

372

1/3/2018 ADI

Draft Notice of sService of Response 
to Request for Production.

0.30 $            26.25 Y

373

1/3/2018 ADI

374

1/3/2018 ADI

375

1/3/2018 ADI

376

382

383

384

385

1/3/2018 ADI

Draft Supplemental Disclosure.

1/4/2018 NDS

Prepare for attorney meeting on all 
pending Oskowis matters with 
Patrice, Gehl, Alex, Eve, Sheri.

1/4/2018 RGT

1/4/2018 ADI

1/4/2018 EAP

Develop litigation plan; draft 
deposition Questions.

Facts investigation regarding 
litigation strategy.

Consider strategy regarding next 
steps.

 $        105.00 

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of the 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

2.00 $          175.00 Y

370

Draft Objections and Responses to 
Plaintiff's First request for 
Production.
Preview pleadings in prior 
consolidated hearing from 
2013/2014 for disclsoure.
Facts investigation regarding 
supplemental disclosure.

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

Description
Hours
Amount
Halved Billing Issue Identified
Review 
documents/pleadings/motions 
forwarded by Texas attorney; review 
Memorandum regarding Zhou 
decision.
0.60 $          105.00 N

1.80 $          157.50 Y

 $        175.00 

 $        175.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The Description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#379

0.40 $            35.00 Y

 $          52.50 

 $          17.50 
 $          29.25 

 $          26.25 

 $          35.00 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          26.25 

0.50 $            87.50 N

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

 $          87.50 

1.20 $          117.00 Y

Block billing

This entry is sufficiently 
specific to determine 
whether the time allotted 
is reasonable.  
Furthermore, the entry 
has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.

 $        117.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          26.25 

0.50 $            48.75 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

Description

389

1/5/2018 ADI

391

1/5/2018 NDS

Research and review Fed. R. Civ. P. 
28 and 30 regarding depositions
Draft 12(c) motion for judgmenet on 
the pleadings ‐ background, 
statement of facts, research on 12(c) 
standards.

1/7/2018 ADI

Facts investigationg regarding 
revisions to and finalizing of Reponse 
to Plaintiff's Request for Production; 
finalizie for service on Plaintiff.

394

395

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.40 $            35.00 Y

1.75 $          153.13 Y

Duplicate of no charge 
#392

The District's Response

The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  

0.40 $            35.00 Y

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          35.00 

 $          35.00 
The description of the 
service is adequate.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  Moreover, subject to 
attorney client privilege
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

1/7/2018 ADI

Draft letter to Trust.

0.40 $            35.00 Y

397

1/8/2018 ADI

Facts investigation regarding 
remaining disclosures and audio 
from OAH prehearing conferences.

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

398

1/8/2018 EAP

0.80 $            78.00 Y

 $          78.00 

399

1/8/2018 NDS

402

1/9/2018 ADI

Review draft Response and Request 
for Production, comments
Research standard review for 12 (c) 
motions; Research how they relate 
to 1415(i)(2) appeals; draft 
"Standard of Review: Fed. R. Civ. P. 
(12(c) " section.
Finalize Response to Plaintiff's First 
Request for Production.

404

1/9/2018 NDS

Revise/Edit Rule 12(c) Motion for 
Judgment on the Pleadings.

0.40 $            35.00 Y

405

1/9/2018 NDS

Draft 12(c) motion, Analysis section 
and Count 1.

0.90 $            78.75 Y

406

1/9/2018 NDS

Draft 12(c) Motion for Judgment on 
the Pleadings, update analysis 
section and draft Counts 1, 2, and 3.

1.30 $          113.75 Y

411

1/10/2018 NDS

Edit 12(c) motion for judgment on 
the pleadings: analysis section.

0.35 $            30.63 Y

1/10/2018 NDS

Draft 12(c) Motion for Judgment on 
the Pleadings; Count 3, Conclusion 
sections.

1.00 $            87.50 Y

412

2.60 $          227.50 Y
0.40 $            35.00 Y

The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#400
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#409
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#408
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#407
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#416
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#415
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#417
Lacking appropriate detail.  The descripton of the 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

413

1/10/2018 NDS

414

1/10/2018 NDS

420

1/11/2018 NDS

Research whether 12(c) motion in 
this context, if granted, is with 
prejudice or without.
Edit Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment 
on the Pleadings.
Edit 12(c) Motion for Judgment on 
the Pleadings; revise count 3 
analysis.

421

1/12/2018 SA

Reviewed Fed 4 Amended Answer to 
determine disclosure needs.

0.35 $            22.75 Y

Duplicate of no charge 
#429

422

1/12/2018 SA

Prepare Supplemental Disclosure 
Fed 4

0.70 $            45.50 Y

Duplicate of no charge 
#426

423

1/12/2018 SA

Research Initial Disclosure Docs

0.50 $            32.50 Y

Duplicate of no charge 
#428

The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  

Block billing

This entry describes 
services both related to 
drafting the notice of oral 
deposition and thus are 
not impermissible block 
billing. 

432

1/15/2018 ADI

433

1/15/2018 ADI

434

1/15/2018 ADI

Review Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure regarding Notice of 
Deposition; draft Notice to Plaintiff 
of Oral deposition.
Draft Notice of Service on Plaintiff of 
Notice of Deposition.
Review Motion for Judgment on the 
Pleadings.

0.35 $            30.63 Y
0.70 $            61.25 Y

0.80 $            70.00 Y

0.70 $            61.25 Y

 $          35.00 

 $          61.25 

 $          70.00 

 $          61.25 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

435

1/16/2018 ADI

436

1/16/2018 SA

Description
Facts investigation regarding 
discovery to be supplemented.
Reviewed Model Rules of Civil 
Procedure for Depositions.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

437

1/16/2018 NDS

Edit 12(c) Motion for Judgment on 
the Pleadings; email draft to Team 
for input.

0.50 $            43.75 Y

438

1/16/2018 ADI

Finalize letter to Plaintiff regarding 
notice of intent to file 12(c) Motion.

0.30 $            26.25 Y

442

1/18/2018 SA

443

1/18/2018 PMH

448

1/20/2018 RGT

The District's Response

1.00 $            87.50 Y
0.20 $            13.00 Y

Block billing

452

1/21/2018 ADI

459

1/22/2018 ADI

Conference and lunch with Attorney 
Tucker.

1.20 $          105.00 Y

461

1/22/2018 NDS

Edit 12(c) Motion for Judgment on 
the Pleadings.

0.80 $            70.00 Y

Work product privilege. 
Nonetheless, the District 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has decreased this entry 
to .5
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.  
#461

1.00 $            87.50 Y

All of the activities in this 
billing relate to to the 
preparation of the notice 
and subpoena for 
Plaintiff's deposition.   
Therefore it is not 
impermissible block 
billing.   Furthermore, this 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

478

1/29/2018 ADI

479

1/30/2018 ADI

488

490

491

1/31/2018 ADI

2/1/2018 ADI

2/1/2018 ADI

Draft Response to Plaintiff's Motion 
to Strike.

Revise and finalize Notice of Taking 
Deposition.

Voicemail to Plaintiff regarding 
personal service of subpoena; follow‐
up email.

 $          43.75 

 $          26.25 

The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
Duplicate of no charge 
removed from this excel 
#444
spread sheet.  
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

1/21/2018 NDS

0.80 $            80.00 Y

 $          13.00 

This entry describes 
services that are both 
related to drafting of the 
Rule 12(c) motion for 
judgment on the 
pleadings and thus are 
not impermissible block 
billing. 

451

0.90 $            58.50 Y

 $          80.00 

1.10 $          107.25 Y

0.75 $            65.63 Y
1.60 $          140.00 Y

 Revised 
Charge 
 $          87.50 

Prepare Discovery for Supplemental 
Disclosure
Review and revise Judgment on the 
Pleadings.
Review 17C and draft deposition 
questions.
Edit 12(c) motion for judgment on 
the pleadings in Fed #4 after 
receiving input form Attorney 
Horstman, Attorney Tucker, and 
Attorney Ivan.
Facts investigation regarding 12(c) 
Motion and revisions.

Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 regarding 
proof of service of subpoena and 
tendering fees; review 28 U.S.C. 
1821 regarding per diem mileage and 
attendance fees; review uniformed 
table of distances and mileage 
reimbursement rates from 
Administrator of General Services.
Telephone call to Plaintiff and 
voicemail regarding availability to 
receive Notice of Deposition and 
subpoena.

Revised 
Hours

 $        107.25 

Duplicate of no charge 
#458

Block billing

The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $        140.00 

0.5

 $          87.50 

 $          17.50 

2.30 $          201.25 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        201.25 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          26.25 

0.50 $            43.75 Y

All of the activities in this 
billing relate to a 
communication with 
Plaintiff, a phone call and 
an email.  Therefore it is 
not impermissible block 
billing.   Furthermore, this 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

 $          43.75 

Block Billing

Ref # Date

493

494

Time 
Keeper

2/1/2018 NDS

2/1/2018 ADI

496

2/2/2018 NDS

497

2/2/2018 PMH

Description

Review response to motion to strike 
out 12(c) motion. Suggest edits for 
Attorney Horstman and Ivan and 
discuss same with Attorney Ivan.

Revise Response to Plaintiff's Motion 
to Strike

Conference with Attorney Alex Ivan 
and Paralegal Sheri F‐S on 
supplemental disclosures in Fed. #4. 
Redact certain bills for disclosure.
Review e‐mail from Matt Oskowis 
(x2) regarding disclosure and service 
of subpoena.

498

2/2/2018 PMH

499

2/5/2018 SA

500

2/5/2018 SA

501

2/5/2018 ADI

Review and revise response to 
Motion to Strike.
Draft letter to District Finance and 
Business Manager regarding: 
Discovery Requests.
Telephone call with Paula Tallini, 
Process Server regarding: serving 
Mr. Oskowis at the IEP meeting.
Review, revise and finalize letter to 
Kathleen Hutchison regarding 
employee information.

502

503

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

2.00 $          175.00 Y

Block billing

All of the activities in this 
billing relate to a revision 
of the Rule 12(c) motion.  
Therefore it is not 
impermissible block 
billing.   Furthermore, this 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

 $        175.00 

0.60 $            52.50 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          52.50 

0.50 $            43.75 Y

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Block billing. Inter‐office 
communications should not  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
be billed.

 $          43.75 

0.30 $            30.00 Y

0.30 $            30.00 Y

 $          30.00 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          30.00 

0.20 $            13.00 Y

 $          13.00 

0.50 $            43.75 Y

 $          43.75 

2/5/2018 ADI

Review, revise and finalize letter to 
finance director regarding invoices, 
etc. from Dr. Trina Spencer.

0.50 $            43.75 Y

 $          43.75 

2/5/2018 SA

Phone call with Paula Tallini 
regarding: serving Matthew Oskowis

0.20 $            13.00 Y

505

2/6/2018 ADI

513

2/7/2018 ADI

514

2/7/2018 ADI

515

2/7/2018 PMH

516

2/7/2018 PMH

520

2/8/2018 PMH

529

Halved Billing Issue Identified

 $          19.50 

2/5/2018 PMH

524

Amount

0.30 $            19.50 Y

504

523

Hours

2/9/2018 PMH

2/9/2018 ADI

2/12/2018 NDS

Review and revise letter to Trust.
Review email response from H.R. 
Director regarding timeline for 
provision of employee 
documentation.
Review Plaintiff's Response to 
Defendant's 12(c) Motion.
Review response from H.R. Director 
regarding employee information.
Review Oskowis mandatory initial 
disclosure.
Review emails regarding Oskowis 
avoiding service and respond.
Review initial discovery disclosure 
(Oskowis)
Review strategy

0.20 $            20.00 Y

 $          13.00 
Attorney client privilege.  
Furthermore, this entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

 $          17.50 

0.30 $            30.00 Y

 $          30.00 

0.20 $            20.00 Y

 $          20.00 

0.60 $            60.00 Y
0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          60.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

Draft, revise and finalize acceptance 
of service; send to Plaintiff.

0.50 $            43.75 Y

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

Draft Reply to Matt's Response to 
our 12(c) Motion for judgment on 
the Pleadings.

3.60 $          630.00 N

Duplicate #530

All of the services 
described are related to 
the acceptance of service 
and thus do not 
constitute impermissible 
block billing.  
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  

 $          43.75 

Ref # Date

530

Time 
Keeper

2/12/2018 NDS

531
532

2/12/2018 SA
2/12/2018 PMH

535

2/14/2018 NDS

536

2/14/2018 ADI

537

2/14/2018 ADI

538

2/14/2018 NDS

Description
Draft Reply to Matt's Response to 
our 12(c) Motion for judgment on 
the Pleadings.

Draft Acceptance of Service for 
Subpoena
Review emails regarding service
Edit Reply on 12(c) motion 
addressing attorney Alex Ivan's 
Comments
Review and revise Reply to Plaintiff's 
Response.
Revise and finalize for filing 
Defendant's Reply Brief.
Finalize Reply on 12(c) motion 
addressing attorney Alex Ivan's 
Comments

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

2.20 $          385.00 N

0.20 $            13.00 Y
0.30 $            30.00 Y

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.80 $          140.00 N

0.50 $          100.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N

541

2/14/2018 ADI

1.50 $          262.50 N

543

2/15/2018 ADI

Draft Motion to Summary Judgment.
Facts investigation regarding 
applicability of prevailing party test 
to Defendants.

2/15/2018 ADI
2/16/2018 PMH

Draft Summary Judgment Motion.
Review prevailing party cases.

1.50 $          262.50 N
0.50 $          100.00 N

552

553

2/17/2018 RGT

2/18/2018 RGT

2/19/2018 RGT

Draft questions for deposition.

Review complaint and counterclaim; 
draft questions for deposition.

Internet search for Oskowis 
websites; draft final questions.

 $        140.00 

 $        105.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0.60 $          105.00 N

544
547

 $          13.00 
 $          30.00 

 $        122.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N

Review, reply and revise.
Review Joint Statement.

 Revised 
Charge 

 $        175.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0.70 $          122.50 N

2/14/2018 PMH
2/14/2018 PMH

Revised 
Hours

 $        385.00 

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

1.00 $          175.00 N

539
540

550

The District's Response

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

Duplicate of #541

The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
spread sheet.  

 $        100.00 
 $          60.00 
 $        262.50 

 $        105.00 

 $        100.00 

3.40 $          331.50 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        331.50 

3.90 $          380.25 Y

Block billing

All of the services 
described are related to 
the preparation for the 
deposition and thus do 
not constitute 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, the 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

 $        380.25 

Block billing

All of the services 
described are related to 
the preparation for the 
deposition and thus do 
not constitute 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, the 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

 $        409.50 

Block billing

All of the services 
described are related to 
the preparation for the 
deposition and thus do 
not constitute 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, the 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

 $        468.00 

4.20 $          409.50 Y

556

2/20/2018 RGT

564

2/21/2018 ADI

565

2/21/2018 ADI

Prepare for deposition; conduct 
deposition; follow up regarding 
deposition information 
Olmsted/Mesa/Tav.
Research prevailing party 
determination/eligibility.
Review email from Sally Cadigan 
regarding Oskowis call to public.

573

2/23/2018 ADI

Telephone conference with Danielle 
Allocco, Director of Chrysalus 
Academy regarding subpoena.

0.40 $            70.00 N

577

2/26/2018 PMH

Review Oskowis evaluation regarding 
EIS submission response (2x)

0.40 $            40.00 Y

4.80 $          468.00 Y
0.70 $          122.50 N

 $        122.50 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 
Inconsistent billing. Refer  The District has deleted 
to #567, 571, 572, and 578 this entry.

0  $                 ‐   

 $          40.00 

Ref # Date

581

Time 
Keeper

2/27/2018 SA

584

2/28/2018 SA

585

2/28/2018 PMH

586

2/28/2018 PMH

587

2/28/2018 PMH

588

3/2/2018 PMH

591

3/5/2018 PMH

592

3/5/2018 PMH

595

3/6/2018 ADI

596

3/6/2018 ADI

597

3/6/2018 ADI

598

599

602

603

3/6/2018 PMH

3/6/2018 PMH

3/7/2018 PMH

3/7/2018 PMH

Description

Draft Supplemental Disclosure.

Revise Supplemental disclosure.
Review Oskowis email regarding ESI 
and response.

Review TERIS Agreement and email 
TERIS
Review email regarding Rule 16 and 
Order.
Review and finalize disclosure 
request for documents.

Review emails regarding TERIS 
production and email Assistant 
Allamong (2X)

Review emails
Telephone conference with TERIS 
regarding production methods.
Facts investigation regarding review 
of documentation and release of 
such to Plaintiff.
E‐mail to Plaintiff regarding 
production of documentation.

Review TERIS emails and prepare for 
electronic product.

Teleconference with TERIS

Review electronic records/ privileged 
documents

Telephone conference with TERIS 
(3x)

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

2.00 $          130.00 Y

The desription of services 
is adequate.  Futhermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        130.00 

0.40 $            26.00 Y

The desription of services 
is adequate.  Futhermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          26.00 

0.40 $            40.00 Y

0.20 $            20.00 Y

 $          40.00 

Block billing

All of the services 
described are related to 
the retention of internet 
based research form and 
thus do not constitute 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, the 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

 $          20.00 

0.40 $            40.00 Y

 $          40.00 

0.40 $            40.00 Y

 $          40.00 
All of the services 
described are related to 
the retention of internet 
based research form and 
thus do not constitute 
impermissible block 
billing.  Furthermore, the 
entry has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

0.60 $            60.00 Y

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

0.30 $            30.00 Y

The desription of services 
is adequate.  Futhermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          60.00 

0.60 $            52.50 Y

 $          52.50 

0.40 $            35.00 Y

 $          35.00 

0.30 $            26.25 Y

 $          26.25 
All of the services 
described are electronic 
records production and 
thus and thus do not 
constitute impermissible 
block billing.  
Furthermore, the entry 
has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 

0.80 $            80.00 Y

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

0.40 $            40.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

2.50 $          250.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.40 $            40.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        250.00 

Ref # Date

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

Time 
Keeper

3/7/2018 PMH

3/7/2018 PMH

3/7/2018 PMH

3/7/2018 PMH

3/7/2018 ADI

3/7/2018 ADI

3/7/2018 EAP

3/7/2018 EAP

Description

Review and finalize response to 
initial disclosure

Review and finalize letter to Oskowis

Telephone conference with 
Sharon/TERIS (3x)

Review electronic records ‐ 900 X

Review documentation for 
responsiveness and privilege.

Review confirmation e‐mail and 
Proof of Service.

Discussion with team regarding 
review

Review emails for disclosure.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

0.30 $            30.00 Y

0.30 $            30.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.60 $            60.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

2.50 $          250.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        250.00 

3.50 $          306.25 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        306.25 

0.20 $            17.50 Y

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.

 $          17.50 

0.50 $            48.75 Y

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

 $          48.75 

3.20 $          312.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        312.00 

3/8/2018 PMH

Review electronic records privilege 
and redaction.

0.50 $            50.00 Y

619

3/8/2018 PMH

Telephone conference with Sharon 
Brown

0.20 $            20.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of #623. Lacking  spread sheet.  The 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  description of services is 
adequate.  
54.2(e)(2)

620

3/8/2018 PMH

Review emails from Sharon Brown 
and respond

0.30 $            30.00 Y

621

3/8/2018 PMH

Telephone conference with Sharon 
Brown

0.30 $            30.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Duplicate of #623. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  The District has deleted 
54.2(e)(2)
this entry.

1.50 $          150.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.30 $            30.00 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

623

3/8/2018 PMH

3/8/2018 PMH

Review and finalize relectronic 
records

Telephone conference with Sharon 
Brown (2x)

 Revised 
Charge 

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

618

622

Revised 
Hours

 $          30.00 

 $          50.00 

0  $                 ‐   

 $        150.00 

Ref # Date

624

625

626

627

628

Time 
Keeper

3/8/2018 PMH

3/8/2018 EAP

3/8/2018 EAP

3/8/2018 EAP

Emails from Sharon Brown (2x)

Further review of emails for 
disclosure

Telephone calls (2) to Teris and 
Sharon Brown

Emails (2) to TERIS and Sharon 
Brown

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.40 $            40.00 Y

2.10 $          204.75 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.30 $            29.25 Y

0.20 $            19.50 Y

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

3/12/2018 SA

635

3/12/2018 EAP

Review current status, disclosure

0.40 $            78.00 N

672

3/16/2018 ADI

Review, revise, and finalize 
Defendant's final supplemental 
disclosures.

0.30 $            26.25 Y

673

3/16/2018 ADI

Telephone conference with Attorney 
Tucker and Sheri Smith‐Fetzer

0.30 $            26.25 Y

686

3/19/2018 PMH

Review discovery requests and 
respond (2x)

0.40 $            40.00 Y

693

3/20/2018 ADI

Review, revise, and finalize Notice of 
Service of Defendant's Supplemental 
Disclosures.

0.20 $            17.50 Y

703

3/21/2018 PMH

Review documents regarding 
discovery

1.00 $          100.00 Y

704

3/21/2018 PMH

715

3/22/2018 PMH

716

3/22/2018 PMH

Strategy and fact finding
E‐mail Oskowis regarding Motion in 
Limine
E‐mail and respond regarding 
settlement

 Revised 
Charge 

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            19.50 Y

Revised 
Hours

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

634

3/12/2018 SA

The District's Response

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Futhermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

Review additional email, Reply
Review emails regarding: Fed 4 from 
last week (54 total)
Review emails regarding: Fed 4 from 
last week (54 total)

633

3/8/2018 EAP

Description

1.00 $          130.00 N
1.00 $          130.00 N

1.00 $          100.00 Y

 $        130.00 
Duplicate #633
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

The District has deleted 
this entry.

The description of 
services is adequate.  
All of the services 
described are related to 
the finalization of 
Defendant's initial 
disclosures thus do not 
constitute impermissible 
block billing.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
54.2(e)(2)
The description of 
services is adequately 
detailed.  Furthermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)
This is not block billing.
The description of 
services is adequately 
detailed.  Furthermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The description of 
services is adequately 
detailed.  Furthermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The description of 
services is adequatley 
detailed.  Furthermore, 
the entry has already 
Lacking appropriate detail.  been discounted by 50 
percent.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.30 $            60.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N

 $        204.75 

0  $                 ‐   

 $          78.00 

 $          26.25 

 $          40.00 

 $          17.50 

 $          60.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

717

3/22/2018 PMH

729

3/23/2018 ADI

730

3/23/2018 PMH

731

3/23/2018 PMH

732

3/23/2018 ADI

733

3/23/2018 ADI

734

3/23/2018 ADI

735

3/23/2018 PMH

750

751

Description

Review Oskowis email (3x)
Draft letter to Plaintiff regarding 
availability to hold good faith 
settlement discussions.
Email Oskowis regarding settlement 
meeting

Review Oskowis email and respond
Respond to Plaintiff regarding 
proposed Motion to Limine.

Revise and finalize Notice of Service 
of Supplemental Disclosures.
Revise and finalize Notice of Service 
of Documentation Responsive to 
Plaintiff's First Request for 
Production.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.60 $            60.00 Y

 $          80.00 

0.30 $            60.00 N

0.20 $            17.50 Y

0.20 $            17.50 Y

Review file and preparement of 
summary judgment.

1.00 $          200.00 N

3/28/2018 ADI

768

3/28/2018 ADI

769

3/28/2018 ADI

776

3/29/2018 PMH

777

3/29/2018 PMH

780

3/30/2018 EAP

Draft Motion for Summary Judgment 
on Counterclaim.
Draft Statement of Undisputed Facts 
in Support of Motion for Summary 
Judgment.
Review research for sumary 
judgment motion.
Review good faith settlement 
discussion and Rule 16 order
Review email regarding prevailing 
party status and research
Consider Approach regarding Motion 
for Summary Judgment

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            35.00 N

3/27/2018 PMH

767

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.40 $            80.00 N

0.30 $            60.00 N

Review email and respond

1.25 $          125.00 Y

 $          35.00 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spreadsheet.  
#737
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.

1.75 $          306.25 N

0.20 $            35.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0.20 $            20.00 Y

0.50 $          100.00 N

 $        100.00 

0.40 $            80.00 N

 $          80.00 

0.40 $            78.00 N

 $          78.00 

0.50 $          100.00 N

 $        100.00 

0.30 $            30.00 Y

 $          30.00 

797

4/3/2018 PMH

Prepare and review Order

0.40 $            80.00 N

798

4/3/2018 PMH

Email Trish Alley

0.30 $            60.00 N

0.30 $            60.00 N

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

795

4/3/2018 PMH

799

4/3/2018 PMH

Conference with Sheri regarding 
drafting Notice for Court

 $          35.00 
 $        437.50 

4/3/2018 PMH

4/2/2018 PMH

 $        200.00 

2.50 $          437.50 N

796

788

 $          17.50 

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Furthermore, the entry 
Lacking appropriate detail.  has already been 
discounted by 50 percent. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
The alleged duplicate was 
no charged and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spreadsheet.  
#772

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Moreover, the contents 
Lacking appropriate detail.  was subject to attorney 
client privilege.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

4/2/2018 PMH

 $          17.50 

 $          60.00 

Review email regarding settlement 
and conference and review Rule 16
Review email regarding counterclaim 
research.
Conference with Matt Oskowis 
regarding good faith settlement
Review and finalize memos and nots 
to files

787

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          87.50 

3/27/2018 PMH

3/27/2018 PMH

Revised 
Hours

0.50 $            87.50 N

Review affidavits and joint motion 
for summary judgment
Review Oskowis email regarding 
settlement and respond

752

The District's Response

1.00 $          200.00 N
1.00 $          200.00 N

 $        200.00 
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $        200.00 
 $          80.00 

 $          60.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

804

4/4/2018 PMH

805

4/4/2018 PMH

806

4/4/2018 ADI

807

4/4/2018 PMH

809

Description
Review and redraft minutes of 
settlement.

Review email and respond to 
District.
Review various‐email 
correspondence from Plaintiff 
questioning good faith settlement 
discussions; follow up regarding 
same.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.80 $          160.00 N

0.80 $          160.00 N

4/5/2018 PMH

1.00 $          200.00 N

810

4/5/2018 PMH

Review finalized minutes

0.30 $            60.00 N

818

4/6/2018 PMH

819

4/6/2018 PMH

823
825

4/8/2018 ADI
4/9/2018 PMH

826

4/9/2018 PMH

827
828

4/9/2018 PMH
4/9/2018 PMH

829

4/9/2018 ADI

830

4/9/2018 EAP

835

4/10/2018 ADI

836

4/10/2018 EAP

837

4/10/2018 PMH

838
839

4/10/2018 ADI
4/10/2018 PMH

840

4/10/2018 PMH

849

4/11/2018 ADI

850

4/11/2018 ADI

851

4/11/2018 PMH

852

4/11/2018 PMH

853

4/11/2018 PMH

854

4/11/2018 PMH

863

4/12/2018 PMH

864

4/12/2018 PMH

865

4/12/2018 ADI

866

4/12/2018 PMH

867

4/12/2018 PMH

868
871

4/12/2018 PMH
4/13/2018 PMH

872

4/13/2018 PMH

Review Court Order regarding status
Review and finalize Joint Report
Review appellate brief in D.C. Circuit 
case regarding prevailing status 
determination.

Review emails for use as exhibits.
Research definition of party for 
political subdivision; draft 
memorandum regarding same.
Research issue of prevailing party for 
fees
Review Court Order regarding rule 
12(c)
Review Court's various orders 
relating to motions and telephonic 
status conference.
Review definition of Party
Review Court Order regarding Notice 
of Telephonic Conference
Draft Motion for Summary Judgment 
on Plaintiff's underlying causes of 
action.
Facts regarding change of strategy in 
addressing underlying appealed due 
process decision and summary 
judgment motion.
Review matter regarding motion for 
summary judgment
E‐mail Oskowis regarding Motion in 
Limine
Review and finalize response and 
reply
Review 2nd response and reply
Telephone conference with Matt 
Oskowis
Telephone conference with Matt 
Oskowis
Facts investigation regarding 
administrative record.
Memorandum to file
Review email Matt Oskowis and 
respond
Review email Oskowis and respond
Attend conference call with Judge
Review Rule 16 Order and prepare 
for call with Judge

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Moreover, the contents 
Lacking appropriate detail.  was subject to attorney 
client privilege.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.50 $            87.50 N

Draft notice to court of settlement
Review Oskowis email and respond 
(3x)

Review Oskowis email and respond 
Good Faith Settlement (2x)
Review Oskowis response and 
respond
Review Federal Rule of Evidence 408 
regarding confidentiality of 
settlement negotiations.
Draft good faith settlement report
Review email Oskowis and respond 
(2x)

The District's Response

0.40 $            80.00 N

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

0.30 $            60.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          80.00 

 $          60.00 

 $          80.00 

 $          35.00 
 $        160.00 
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.  
The description of 
services is adequate.  

Duplicate of no charge 
#833

The alleged duplicate was 
no charged and has been 
removed from this excel 
spreadsheet.  

0.30 $            52.50 N

0.25 $            24.38 Y

 $        160.00 

 $        120.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0.20 $            35.00 N
0.80 $          160.00 N
0.60 $          120.00 N

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          87.50 
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.60 $          120.00 N
0.40 $            80.00 N

Revised 
Hours

 $          60.00 
 $          60.00 

 $          52.50 

1.50 $          262.50 N

 $        262.50 

1.00 $          195.00 N

 $        195.00 

0.80 $          160.00 N

 $        160.00 

0.50 $            87.50 N
0.30 $            60.00 N

 $          87.50 
 $          60.00 

0.30 $            60.00 N

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

The District has 
decreased this entry by .1

1.50 $          262.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.70 $          122.50 N
0.50 $          100.00 N

0.20 $            40.00 N
0.50 $          100.00 N
0.50 $          100.00 N
0.40 $            70.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N
0.20 $            40.00 N
1.00 $          200.00 N
0.50 $          100.00 N

 $        262.50 

 $        122.50 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.40 $            80.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N

0.1  $          20.00 

 $        100.00 
 $          80.00 

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

Duplicate #863
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

This should be deleted.
The description of 
services is adequate.
The description to 
services is adequate.

0  $                 ‐   

Duplicate #868
This should be deleted.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0  $                 ‐   

 $          60.00 
 $          40.00 

 $          70.00 

 $        200.00 
 $        100.00 

Ref # Date

873

874

Time 
Keeper

Description

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

4/13/2018 ADI

Review Rule 16 pretrial conference 
attendance requirements; draft 
Memorandum regarding same.

0.50 $            87.50 N

4/13/2018 ADI

Facts regarding possible extension of 
dispositive motion deadline and 
good faith settlement discussions.

The District's Response

0.50 $            87.50 N

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          87.50 

 $          87.50 

875

4/13/2018 PMH

Email Matt Oskowis

0.40 $            80.00 N

876

4/13/2018 PMH

Discovery transmittal of record and 
review emails

0.30 $            60.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
All services provided 
under this entry relate to 
the review and 
production of emails in 
discovery and thus is not 
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  impermissible block 
billing.  
54.2(e)(2)

0.06 $            12.00 N

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

877

4/13/2018 PMH

Conference with Alex Ivan

882

4/15/2018 ADI

Draft Motion for Summary Judgment 
on Plaintiff's underlying causes of 
Action.

2.50 $          437.50 N

883

4/16/2018 PMH

Letter to David Lykins

1.00 $          200.00 N

884

4/16/2018 PMH

Review Oskowis email respond

0.40 $            80.00 N

888

4/17/2018 PMH

Draft joint report and request to 
extend deadline, review and revise

0.80 $          160.00 N

889

4/17/2018 PMH

Review joint report and redraft

0.80 $          160.00 N

890

4/17/2018 PMH

letter to D. Lykins and finalize

0.40 $            80.00 N

891

4/17/2018 VF

Review joint report and good faith 
settlement talks.

0.10 $            17.50 N

898

4/19/2018 PMH

Review email Oskowis (2x)

0.50 $          100.00 N

899

4/19/2018 PMH

Redraft joint report and finalize

0.50 $          100.00 N

900

4/19/2018 PMH

Review final report

0.40 $            80.00 N

901

4/19/2018 ADI

902

4/19/2018 PMH

Review and revise Joint Status 
Report regarding settlement talks.
Email Oskowis regarding settlement 
meeting

0.30 $            52.50 N

4/20/2018 PMH

regarding settlement talks.

0.50 $          100.00 N

906

4/20/2018 PMH

Review court order and Oskowis 
emails

0.40 $            80.00 N

907

4/20/2018 VF

908

4/20/2018 ADI

909

4/20/2018 VF

917

4/24/2018 PMH

918

4/24/2018 VF

Meeting with Attorney Horstman 
and Sheri Smith‐Fetzer to discuss 
status and plan future steps.
Review record and determine 
maintenance of files
E‐mail to Attorney Horstman, 
Attorney Ivan and Sheri Smith‐Fetzer 
regarding Matthew Oskowis's latest 
e‐mail.

919

4/26/2018 ADI

Facts investigation regarding 
discovery, settlement and motions.

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

The description of 
services is adequate.  
Because this is the same 
thing it is not block billing.
The description of 
services is adequate.
The alleged duplicate was 
no charged and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spreadsheet.  
#892
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
The alleged duplicate was 
no charged and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spreadsheet.  
#904
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            40.00 N

905

Review and finalize
Review Order extending deadline 
regarding settlement and dispositive 
motions. 

This is not a duplicate 
entry and instead is the 
continuation of work 
begun on April 11, 2018.  
Duplicate of #849
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.25 $            43.75 N

0.20 $            35.00 N

0.10 $            17.50 N
0.20 $            40.00 N

 $          12.00 

 $        437.50 

 $        160.00 
 $        160.00 

 $          17.50 

 $          80.00 

 $          40.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The District has deleted 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
this entry.
The description of 
services is specific 
Block billing. Lacking 
enough to determine 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  whether the time is 
54.2(e)(2)
reasonable.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The District has deleted 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
this entry.
The District has 
Excessive, redundant or 
discounted this entry to 
otherwise unnecessary.
.1.
The alleged duplicate was 
no charged and has been 
removed from this excel 
spreadsheet.  
Duplicate #915
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0  $                 ‐   

 $          80.00 
0  $                 ‐   

0.1  $          17.50 

 $          40.00 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

1.20 $          210.00 N

 $        210.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

4/29/2018 ADI

Review emails an transcript
Revise Motion for Summary 
Judgment.

Halved Billing Issue Identified
Lacking appropriate detail. 
0.40 $            80.00 N
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
1.20 $          210.00 N
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

4/30/2018 ADI

Review correspondence and facts 
investigation regarding discovery, 
settlement, and possible subpoena 
of e‐mail records.

0.60 $          105.00 N

920

4/26/2018 PMH

922

923
924

4/30/2018 PMH

925

5/1/2018 VF

926

5/1/2018 VF

927

5/1/2018 ADI

Description

E‐mail regarding transcript
Reviewed ALJ record regarding 
paraprofessional complaint, revised 
section regarding the same in motion 
for summary judgment.
Letter to Matthew Oskowis 
regarding settlement.
Review section in Motion for 
Summary Judgment on Counterclaim 
related to frivolous claims under 
IDEA; incorporate Motion for 
Summary Judgment on underlying 
civil action.

928

5/1/2018 VF

929

5/2/2018 ADI

Review and update Oskowis Matters.
Draft sections of Motion for 
Summary Judgment related to 
Plaintiff's Counts 1 and 2.

5/2/2018 VF

Review emails from Attorney Ivan 
and make revisions to settlement 
letter to Matthew Oskowis.

930

931

5/2/2018 VF

933

5/6/2018 ADI

Finalize letter to Matthew Oskowis. 
Email to DL to send out.
Draft section of Motion for Summary 
Judgment related to Plaintiff's Count 
3; revise additional portions of 
motion.

Hours

Amount

0.20 $            40.00 N

The District's Response
The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

 $        210.00 

 $        105.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

1.30 $          227.50 N

 $        227.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N

 $        105.00 

0.50 $            87.50 N
0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          87.50 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

2.50 $          437.50 N

0.10 $            17.50 N

0.10 $            17.50 N

 $        437.50 
Inter‐office 
communications relating 
inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

Block billing

These services both relate 
to the letter to Matthew 
Oskowis and therefore 
are not impermissible 
block bililng.  

Block billing

These services both relate 
to the revision of the 
motion for summary 
judgment and therefore 
are not impermissible 
block bililng.  

2.50 $          437.50 N

 $          17.50 

 $          17.50 

 $        437.50 

934

5/7/2018 VF

Review initial motion for summary 
judgment and email Attorney Ivan 
regarding suggested revisions.

935

5/7/2018 VF

Review email sent to Trish Alley 
regarding EO's medical condition.

0.10 $            17.50 N

 $          17.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N
0.10 $            17.50 N

 $        105.00 
 $          17.50 

0.40 $            70.00 N

936
937

5/10/2018 ADI
5/10/2018 VF

Facts regarding delay in ALI 
determinations and allegations in DP 
15 regarding paraprofessional 
qualification and supervision.
Read decision on attorney's fees.

938

5/11/2018 ADI

Facts regarding administrative 
record and IEPs contained therein.

939

940

941

942

0.70 $          122.50 N

5/11/2018 VF

Read MO's due process complaint.

0.30 $            52.50 N

5/14/2018 ADI

Facts regarding proceeding to 
hearing, data sheets in the record, 
and pre‐hearing audio recordings.

5/14/2018 ADI

 $          70.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.60 $          105.00 N

Facts regarding Notice of Readiness; 
review Court Rule 16 Scheduling 
Order and Order Extending 
Dispositive Motion Deadline.

0.50 $            87.50 N

5/14/2018 PMH

Telephone conference with Veronika 
regarding Association of counsel

0.40 $            80.00 N

 $        122.50 

 $          52.50 

 $        105.00 

 $          87.50 
Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

 $          80.00 

Ref # Date

943

Time 
Keeper

5/14/2018 PMH

944

5/14/2018 ADI

945

5/14/2018 VF

948

5/16/2018 VF

949

5/17/2018 ADI

950

5/17/2018 ADI

951

5/17/2018 VF

952

5/17/2018 VF

953

5/18/2018 VF

954

5/18/2018 ADI

955

5/19/2018 ADI

956

5/19/2018 ADI

957

5/19/2018 ADI

958

959

960

Description

Review emails and respond 
regarding deadline
Draft memorandum Regarding party 
obligations to file Notice of 
Readiness and deadline to file same.
Review Paralegal Smith‐Fetzer's 
email regarding notice of readiness 
and order, respond.
Finalize initial draft of motion for 
summary judgment.
Review and revise draft Motion for 
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's 
underlying civil action.
Facts regarding STO's, including their 
purpose and the District's obligation 
to revise them.
Finalize initial draft of motion for 
summary judgment and emailed to 
Attorney Ivan for review.
Research on short‐term objectives to 
include in motion for summary 
judgment.
Review and incorporate Attorney 
Ivan's edits into motion for summary 
judgment; proofread to make more 
concise.
Review and revise draft Motion for 
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's 
underlying civil action.
Facts regarding guidance found in 
former Appendix to IDEAS 
regulations relative to STO's and 
their purpose.
Facts regarding progress reports; 
review of the administrative record 
and Plaintiff's acknowledged receipt 
thereof.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.30 $            60.00 N

0.30 $            52.50 N

0.10 $            17.50 N
2.70 $          472.50 N

The District's Response

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.

inter‐office 
communications should not 
be billed.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

1.50 $          262.50 N

0.70 $          122.50 N

0.70 $          122.50 N

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

 $          60.00 

 $          52.50 

 $          17.50 
 $        472.50 

 $        262.50 

Block billing. Lacking 
The description is specific 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  enough to determine 
54.2(e)(2). Inter‐office 
whether a reasonable 
communications should not  amount of time was 
be billed.
billed.  

0.40 $            70.00 N

The description is specific 
enough to determine 
whether a reasonable 
amount of time was 
billed.  

1.10 $          192.50 N

Block billing

0.50 $            87.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        122.50 

 $        122.50 

 $          70.00 

 $        192.50 

 $          87.50 

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

5/23/2018 ADI

Research and review Tenth Circuit 
Case interpreting purpose of STO's.
Follow‐up regarding Plaintiff's 
response to District's offer of 
settlement and report with Court on 
status of negotiations.

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

5/24/2018 ADI

Facts regarding separate statement 
of facts incorporated into body of 
motion for summary judgment.

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

5/25/2018 VF

961

5/25/2018 ADI

962

5/25/2018 PMH

963

5/25/2018 PMH

964

5/25/2018 ADI

965

5/27/2018 ADI

966

5/29/2018 VF

Proofread and made revisions to 
motion for summary judgment to 
make more concise, more coherent.
Revise motion for summary 
judgment.
Draft updated report to court 
regarding settlement.
Draft updated settlement report
Facts regarding IDEA progress report 
requirements and notation with an 
IEP.

Review administrative record; revise 
and finalize motion for summary 
judgment.
Proofread and made additional 
revisions to motion for summary 
judgment.

1.50 $          262.50 N
1.20 $          210.00 N
1.00 $          200.00 N
0.60 $          120.00 N

 $        262.50 
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

Block billling

The services related to 
incorporating 
administrative record into 
the motion for summary 
judgment and therefore is 
not impermissible block 
billing.

0.40 $            70.00 N

1.50 $          262.50 N

1.20 $          210.00 N

 $        210.00 
 $        200.00 
 $        120.00 

 $          70.00 

 $        262.50 

 $        210.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

967

5/29/2018 ADI

968

5/29/2018 VF

969

5/29/2018 ADI

970

5/29/2018 VF

971

5/30/2018 VF

972

5/30/2018 VF

973

5/30/2018 ADI

974

5/30/2018 VF

975

5/31/2018 VF

976

977

5/31/2018 VF

6/7/2018 ADI

Description
Hours
Facts regarding statement of facts 
citations, progress reports, citations 
to repealed law, and strategy for 
timing of filing motion for summary 
judgment.
0.80
Review and incorporate Attorney 
Ivan's edits into motion for summary 
judgment.
0.60
Review and revise Defendant's 
notice/update on status of 
settlement discussions.
0.50
Calculate deadlines for filing motion 
for summary judgment.
0.40
Drafted statement of facts in support 
of motion for summary judgment.
Proofread and made revisions to 
motion for summary judgment.
Review edits to Defendant's 
notice/update on status of 
settlement discussions and finalize 
for filing.
Reviewed and revised and made 
edits to update on settlement 
discussions.
Finalized initial draft of statement of 
facts.
Review and incorporate DL's edits 
into motion for summary judgment.
Facts investigation regarding 
settlement discussions related to 
Federal 4 and 5 and finalizing 
separate statement of facts for 
summary judgment motion.

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

$          140.00 N

$          105.00 N

$            87.50 N
$            70.00 N

Block billing

This is not block billing.  

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
This is not block billing.  
Excessive, redundant or 
The District has deleted 
otherwise unnecessary.
this entry.

0.30 $            52.50 N

0.20 $            35.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of the 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

The description of the 
services is adequate.
The description of the 
services is adequate.

0.60 $          105.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of the 
services is adequate.
The description of the 
services is adequate.

0.30 $            52.50 N

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

The description of the 
services is adequate.  This 
is not block billing.  

0.20 $            35.00 N

 Revised 
Charge 

 $        140.00 

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

1.20 $          210.00 N

Revised 
Hours

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $        105.00 

 $          87.50 
0  $                 ‐   

 $        210.00 
 $          52.50 

 $          35.00 

 $          35.00 
 $        105.00 

 $          52.50 

 $          70.00 
Inter‐office 
communications relating 
inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of the 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

978

6/7/2018 VF

Review email from Attorney Ivan 
regarding MSJ and respond.

0.10 $            17.50 N

979

6/8/2018 ADI

Revise draft Statement of Facts.

2.50 $          437.50 N

980

6/8/2018 ADI

2.00 $          350.00 N

 $        350.00 

981

6/8/2018 PMH

Review administrative record, 
complaint; cross‐reference citations 
in draft Statement of Facts
Review final motion for summary 
judgment

0.60 $          120.00 N

 $        120.00 

3.00 $          525.00 N

 $        525.00 

982

6/13/2018 ADI

983

6/13/2018 PMH

984

6/19/2018 PMH

985

6/20/2018 ADI

986

6/21/2018 ADI

Review Bluebook and administrative 
record; revise state of facts.

Conference with Veronika regarding 
update and adding counsel
Review Notice of Association
Facts investigation regarding 
finalizing of motion for summary 
judgment and statement of facts.
Revise Motion for Summary 
Judgment on Plaintiff's affirmative 
action.

987

6/21/2018 VF

988

6/21/2018 ADI

Finalized statement of facts, double 
checking exhibits, and email to 
Attorney Ivan.
Revise Statement of Facts 
accompanying Motion for Summary 
Judgment on Plaintiff's affirmative 
action.

989

6/21/2018 VF

Review and incorporate Attorney 
Ivan's revisions into state of facts.

0.30 $            60.00 N
0.30 $            60.00 N

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.20 $            35.00 N

1.20 $          210.00 N

 $          17.50 
 $        437.50 

 $          60.00 
 $          60.00 

 $          35.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
All of the activities in this 
entry relate to the 
finalization of the 
statement of facts and is 
thus not impermissible 
block billing.  

 $        210.00 

1.20 $          210.00 N

Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

0.80 $          140.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        140.00 

0.60 $          105.00 N

Block billing

 $        105.00 

This is not block billing.  

 $        210.00 

Ref # Date

990

Time 
Keeper

6/21/2018 VF

991

6/21/2018 VF

992

6/21/2018 ADI

993

6/22/2018 VF

994

6/22/2018 DL

995

6/22/2018 ADI

996

6/22/2018 ADI

997

6/22/2018 ADI

998

6/22/2018 PMH

999

6/22/2018 VF

1000

6/22/2018 ADI

1001

6/24/2018 PMH

1007

6/27/2018 ADI

1009

6/29/2018 PMH

1016

7/6/2018 VF

1017

7/6/2018 ADI

1018

1019

Description

Proofread motion for summary 
judgment and sed to Attorney Ivan.

Review settlement offer and 
forwarded to Attorney Horstman 
and Attorney Ivan.
Facts investigation regarding level of 
administrative record citation detail 
included in Statement of Facts 
accompanying summary judgment 
motion.
Finalize revisions to Motion for 
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's 
affirmative claims and Statement of 
Facts.
Proofread Statement of Facts in 
support of Motion for Summary 
Judgment and cross referenced with 
exhibits. Redacted E.O.'s name and 
DOB on exhibits. Prepared and filed 
Motion for Summary Judgment, 
Statement of Facts and exhibits.
Finalize for filing Statement of Facts 
accompanying Motion for Summary 
Judgment.
Finalize for filing the Motion for 
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's 
Affirmative Action.
Cite check Motion for Summary 
Judgment and research authority 
related to ALJ dismissals of due 
process complaints without a 
hearing.
Review email regarding authority to 
Dismiss without hearing and respond 
(2x)
Review exhibits for statement of 
facts in support of Motion for 
Summary Judgment.
Facts investigation regarding 
supplementary aids and services in 
relation to special education and 
related service minutes.
Review statement of facts and 
exhibits
Facts investigation regarding 
likelihood of settlement, Governing 
Board approval, and discussions 
surrounding possible offer of 
settlement to Plaintiff.
Review research regarding Due 
Process hearing.

Hours

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.30 $            52.50 N

0.20 $            35.00 N

0.30 No Charge

The District's Response

 Revised 
Charge 

Block billing

All of the activities in this 
entry relate to drafting 
the motion for summary 
judgment  and is thus not 
impermissible block 
billing.  

 $          52.50 

Block billing

All of the activities in this 
entry relate to a 
settlement offer and are 
thus not impermissible 
block billing.  

 $          35.00 

N

2.70 $          472.50 N

Revised 
Hours

 No Charge 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
All of the activities in this 
entry relate to finalizing 
the motion for summary 
judgment  and thus is not 
impermissible block 
billing.  

 $        472.50 

4.00 $          420.00 N

Block billing

1.50 $          262.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        262.50 

1.30 $          227.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        227.50 

0.80 $          140.00 N

0.40 $            80.00 N

 $        140.00 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.40 $            70.00 N

0.60 No Charge

 $          70.00 

N

1.00 $          200.00 N

 No Charge 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.30 $            52.50 N
0.40 $            80.00 N

 $        420.00 

 $        200.00 

 $          52.50 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
Moreover, protected by 
Lacking appropriate detail.  the work product 
doctrine.  
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

 $          80.00 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

7/24/2018 ADI

Telephonic conference regarding 
potential settlement
Facts regarding settlement proposal 
and timing in relation to appeal 
rights
Review Plaintiff's Response to 
Motion for Summary Judgment, 
controverted statement of facts, and 
exhibits

1.40 $          245.00 N

 $        245.00 

7/25/2018 ADI

Facts regarding Plaintiff's Response 
to Motion for Summary Judgment

0.30 $            52.50 N

1020

7/27/2018 VF

1021

7/29/2018 VF

1022

7/31/2018 VF

Begin drafting reply Memorandum,
Review Response to Motion for 
Summary Judgment
Begin researching reply 
Memorandum,

0.40 $            70.00 N

0.40 $            70.00 N

 $          52.50 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          70.00 

0.70 $          122.50 N

 $        122.50 

0.60 $          105.00 N

 $        105.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

1023

8/1/2018 ADI

1024

8/1/2018 DL

1025

8/1/2018 VF

1026

8/1/2018 VF

1027

8/2/2018 VF

1028

8/2/2018 ADI

1029

8/2/2018 VF

1031

8/3/2018 ADI

1032

8/3/2018 VF

1033

8/3/2018 ADI

1034

8/6/2018 VF

1035

8/7/2018 ADI

1036

8/8/2018 VF

1037

8/9/2018 VF

1038

8/9/2018 PMH

1039

8/10/2018 VF

1040

8/10/2018 PMH

Description
Hours
Research A:J dismissals and facts 
investigation regarding same.
1.20
Draft Motion for Extension to File 
Reply in support of Motion for 
Summary Judgment along with 
proposed order
0.30
E‐mail to MO to see if he objects to a 
ten day extension on reply
0.10
Proofread and make revisions to 
request for extension.
0.10
Begin drafting reply memorandum in 
support of motion for summary 
judgment
0.90
Review motion requesting extension 
to deadline for filing Reply, Plaintiff's 
objection, and Court's Order granting 
extension.
0.40
E‐mail to EO regarding extension 
revisions to request for extension, 
email to DL
0.30
Review Tenth Circuit Opinion 
regarding ALJ dismissal for failure to 
state a claim and draft 
Memorandum regarding same.
0.90
Research on reply memorandum
Facts regarding parent legal claims 
and failure to request IEP meeting 
after progress reporting.

Research and drafted reply in 
support of motion for summary 
judgment.
Facts regarding IDEA due process 
complaint sufficiency and annual 
goal data sheets.
Draft reply in support of motion for 
summary judgment
Continued researching and drafting 
reply in support of MSJ
Review notice for summary 
judgment response from Matt 
Oskowis

Researched and drafted reply in 
support of MSJ
Review emails from Veronika and 
respond (2x)

8/12/2018 VF

Facts regarding judicata, complaint 
sufficiency, and parent 
communications from the District.
Proofread and made revisions to 
reply to make more concise.

1043

8/13/2018 VF

Proofread and made revisions to 
reply memorandum, email to AI for 
review.

1044

8/13/2018 ADI

1047

8/14/2018 VF

1041
1042

8/10/2018 ADI

Review and revise initial draft of 
Reply Brief.
Proofread and made revisions to 
reply memorandum based on AI's 
comments

Amount

Halved Billing Issue Identified

The District's Response

Revised 
Hours

 Revised 
Charge 

$          210.00 N

 $        210.00 

$            31.50 N

 $          31.50 

$            17.50 N

 $          17.50 

$            17.50 N

 $          17.50 

$          157.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        157.50 

$            70.00 N

 $          70.00 

$            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

$          157.50 N

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $        157.50 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.30 $            52.50 N

4.30 $          752.50 N

 $          52.50 

Block billing. Duplicate of 
#1020, #1027, and #1022

This is not block billing.  
Nor is it duplicative as 
counsel simply continued 
to research and draft the 
reply memorandum.  The 
alleged duplicates were 
not charged and have 
been removed from this 
excel spreadheet.

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv 
54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.  
This is not block billing.  
The description of 
services is adequate.  

0.60 $          105.00 N
1.20 $          210.00 N

1.60 $          280.00 N

 $        105.00 

1.00 $          200.00 N

3.20 $          560.00 N
0.60 $          120.00 N

This is not block billing.  
Nor is it duplicative as 
counsel simply continued 
to research and draft the 
reply memorandum.  The 
alleged duplicates were 
Block billing. Lacking 
appropriate detail. LRCiv  no charged and have 
been removed from this 
54.2(e)(2). Duplicate of 
#1020, #1027, #1034, 1037 excel spreadheet.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        280.00 

 $        560.00 

 $          70.00 

0.75 $          131.25 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.
#1045
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.
#1046

2.60 $          455.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

0.95 $          166.25 N

 $        210.00 

 $        200.00 

0.40 $            70.00 N
0.80 $          140.00 N

 $        752.50 

 $        140.00 

 $        455.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

1048

8/14/2018 ADI

1049

8/14/2018 VF

1051

8/15/2018 VF

1052

8/15/2018 VF

1053

8/16/2018 VF

1054

8/16/2018 PMH

1055
1058

Description
Review and revise second draft Reply 
Brief with detailed citation checks.
Review and incorporate AI's edits
Proofread and made additional 
revisions to reply in support of 
motion for summary judgment
Read and edited VF's reply regarding 
SJM.
Telephone conference with PH to 
discuss reply, made edits and 
revisions based on discussion, review 
and incorporate AI's revisions to 
reply.

Hours

Amount

Revised 
The District's Response Hours
The alleged duplicate was 
a no charge and has been 
removed from this excel 
Duplicate of no charge 
spread sheet.
#1048
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

Halved Billing Issue Identified

0.80 $          140.00 N
0.60 $          105.00 N

 $        315.00 

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $          87.50 

1.70 $          297.50 N

0.30 $            52.50 N
0.50 $          100.00 N

1059

8/17/2018 ADI

Finalize Reply Brief.

0.50 $            87.50 N

1060

8/17/2018 VF

Final revisions to reply

0.50 $            87.50 N

1061

9/29/2018 PMH

Review email and update Trish Alley

0.30 $            60.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

0.20 $            35.00 N

Excessive, redundant or 
otherwise unnecessary.

2/19/2019 ADI

Review minute order transferring 
case to Judge Lanza
Read order granting motion for 
summary judgment
Review and analyze Order granting 
summary judgment and 
accompanying judgment
Facts regarding entry of judgment 
and erroneous termination in its 
entirety, including District's 
Counterclaim.

1065

2/15/2019 VF

1066

2/19/2019 ADI

1067

1069

1070

1.40 $          280.00 N

Inter‐office 
communications relating 
Inter‐office 
communications should not  to the processing of the 
case are properly billed.
be billed.
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

8/16/2018 ADI
8/17/2018 PMH

10/31/2018 ADI

 $        105.00 

1.80 $          315.00 N

Review and revise
Facts regarding entitlement to due 
process hearings and service minute 
calculations.
Review final reply

1062

 Revised 
Charge 

 $        297.50 

 $          52.50 
 $        100.00 
The description of 
services is adequate.  
The description of 
services is adequate.  
The description of 
services is adequate.  
The District has 
discounted this entry to 
.1.

 $          87.50 
 $          87.50 

0.1  $          17.50 

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $          52.50 

1.00 $          175.00 N

 $        175.00 

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $          87.50 

2/20/2019 ADI

Facts investigation regarding styling 
of claims for attorneys' fees as 
Counterclaim against Plaintiff

0.50 $            87.50 N

 $          87.50 

2/20/2019 ADI

Review and revise motion to amend 
judgment in accordance with order 
to preserve District's Counterclaim

0.50 $            87.50 N

1071

2/20/2019 VF

Draft motion to amend judgment

0.40 $            70.00 N

1072

2/20/2019 VF

0.20 $            35.00 N

1073

2/21/2019 VF

Research on counterclaim
Review and incorporate AI's edits 
into motion to amend

 $          87.50 
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

Block billing

All of the activities in this 
entry relate to the 
finalization of the motion 
to amend judgment and is 
thus not impermissible 
block billing.  

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          70.00 

 $          35.00 

1074

2/21/2019 DL

Proofread Motion to Amended 
Judgment. Drafted Proposed Order 
and email to Attorney Fabian. Filed 
Motion to proposed order with 
USDC. Email to judge chambers

1075

2/22/2019 ADI

Review and analyze Court's order 
granting motion to amend judgment.

0.20 $            35.00 N

 $          35.00 

1077

2/26/2019 VF

Research on how to proceed with 
respect to the attorney's fees claim.

0.70 $          122.50 N

 $        122.50 

1078

2/26/2019 VF

Began drafting motion for attorney's 
fees and memorandum in support.

0.60 $          105.00 N

2/26/2019 ADI

Review and analyze the applicability 
of judgment in Federal 4 to 
adjudication of issues in Federal 6

0.50 $            87.50 N

1079

1080

2/27/2019 VF

1081

2/27/2019 VF

Continued research and drafting 
memorandum in support of motion 
for attorney's fees and costs.
Review Oskowis deposition for 
purposes of filing motion for 
attorney's fees.

0.20 $            21.00 N

1.90 $          332.50 N

1.00 $          175.00 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $          21.00 

 $        105.00 

 $          87.50 
Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

 $        332.50 

 $        175.00 

Ref # Date

Time 
Keeper

1082

2/27/2019 ADI

1083

2/27/2019 ADI

1085

2/28/2019 VF

1086

2/28/2019 ADI

1087

2/28/2019 ADI

Description
Hours
Amount
Halved Billing Issue Identified
Draft memorandum regarding 
standards for fee awards against pro 
se parents and standard for showing 
improper purposes
0.70 $          122.50 N
Research and facts regarding 
applicability of Rule 56 to IDEA fee‐
seeking actions.
0.40 $            70.00 N

The District's Response

 $          70.00 

1088

3/1/2019 VF

1089

3/1/2019 VF

1090

3/1/2019 VF

1091

3/1/2019 DL

Proofread Motion for Leave to File 
Motion. Drafted proposed Order and 
email to Attorney Fabian. Filed 
Motion and proposed order with 
USDC. Emailed motion and proposed 
order to judge chambers.

0.20 $            21.00 N

Block billing

1092

3/4/2019 VF

Continued drafting memorandum in 
support of motion for attorney's fees

5.70 $          997.50 N

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

Finalize memorandum in support of 
motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs 
and supporting documentation.
609

3.00 $          525.00 N
$    64,883.13

1094
Total

3/5/2019 VF

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.

0.70 $          122.50 N

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $        280.00 

 $        122.50 

0.20 $            35.00 N
1.20 $          210.00 N

 Revised 
Charge 

 $        122.50 

Worked on memorandum in support 
of motion for attorney's fees.
Review Order in Federal 1 and 
revised proposed language for fee 
application
Communications with Plaintiff 
regarding conferral to discuss 
settlement in lieu of pursuit of fee 
award
Continued draft memorandum in 
support of attorney's fees
Review email from Matthew and 
respond
Drafted motion for leave to file 
motion regarding liability for 
attorney's fees only

1.60 $          280.00 N

Revised 
Hours

 $          35.00 
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
Lacking appropriate detail. 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)

The description of 
services is adequate.
The description of 
services is adequate.

0.30 $            52.50 N

 $        210.00 

 $          52.50 
All of the activities in this 
entry relate to the 
finalization of a motion 
for filing  and is thus not 
impermissible block 
billing.  

Lacking appropriate detail.  The description of 
LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)
services is adequate.  

 $          21.00 

 $        997.50 

 $        525.00 
$  54,992.50