Tridico v. Dist. of Columbia

Full title: PHILIP J. TRIDICO, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Jan 30, 2017

235 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13–0937 (ESH)

01-30-2017

Philip J. TRIDICO, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Steven Bruce Vinick, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., Greenbelt, MD, Guru V. Shanmugamani, Brian J. Markovitz, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., Greenbelt, MD, for Plaintiff. Martha J. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge

Steven Bruce Vinick, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., Greenbelt, MD, Guru V. Shanmugamani, Brian J. Markovitz, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., Greenbelt, MD, for Plaintiff.

Martha J. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Philip Tridico has moved for attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k) and 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(2), under which the Court has discretion to award reasonable fees to a prevailing party. (Pl.s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Attorneys Fees and Costs [ECF No. 75] at 3 ("Pls. Mot.").) Defendant, the District of Columbia (the "District"), does not dispute that plaintiff is entitled to fees, but it argues that Tridicos request of $314,734.62 in fees and $2,797.56 in costs is unreasonable and should be denied in part. (See Def.s Oppn Br. [ECF No. 79] at 1; Pl.s Reply Br. [ECF No. at 23].) The District proposes various reductions in fees and costs, for a total recovery of no more than $151,061.97. (Def.s Oppn Br. at 2–3.) The Court agrees that Tridico is not entitled to the full amount requested, though he is entitled to more than the District proposes to pay. Therefore, Tridicos motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The background of this case has been laid out in great detail in the Courts previous Memorandum Opinion. See Tridico v. Dist. of Columbia , 130 F.Supp.3d 17, 19–23 (D.D.C. 2015). The Court will therefore recite only the facts relevant to Tridicos fee petition.

Tridico, a Roman Catholic who previously served in the United States Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Reserves, became a police officer in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 2006. In 2013, Tridico brought this action against the District, alleging that he was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment on the basis of his religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and on the basis of his prior military service, in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (Compl., June 21, 2013, [ECF No. 1] at 10–12.).¹ The District moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. See Tridico , 130 F.Supp.3d at 19. Following summary judgment, four of Tridicos five surviving claims went to trial: (1) hostile work environment under Title VII; (2) retaliation under Title VII; (3) hostile work environment under USERRA; and (4) retaliation under USERRA. (Order, Dec. 23, 2015 [ECF No. 49].) A jury heard the case over four days beginning on December 11, 2015.

1 Tridicos complaint also included claims—which he later dismissed—for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code § 2–1401 et seq. Tridico pursued those DCHRA claims in administrative proceedings before the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights ("DCOHR") prior to filing this lawsuit. "The DCOHR determined that there was probable cause to believe that the District had subjected [Tridico] to a hostile work environment because of his religion, but that there was no probable cause to support his retaliation claim." Tridico, 130 F.Supp.3d at 22. In abandoning the DCHRA claims, Tridico acknowledged that "[i]f a complainant has filed a complaint with the DCOHR, he cannot then sue in court, unless he first withdraws the complaint [before a for-cause determination]." (Pl.s Oppn to Def.s Mot. for S.J. [ECF No. 30] at 9 n.2 (quoting D.C. Code § 2–1403.16(a) ).)

After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Tridico on his Title VII claims. (See Verdict Form [ECF No. 70].) Specifically, the jury found that Tridico proved by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the District "subjected [Tridico] to unwelcome harassment based on his religion that was so severe or pervasive ... as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of [Tridicos] employment;" (2) Tridico "complained to his superiors about harassment ... and [the District] subjected [Tridico] to an adverse employment action when it transferred him out of the VICE unit;" and (3) the District "would not have transferred [Tridico] out of the VICE unit but for his complaint about harassment based on his religion." (Id. at 1–2.) As a result of its finding on the Title VII claim, the jury awarded Tridico $20,000 in compensatory damages for "emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and/or other non-monetary losses."²

2 Lost earnings under Title VII are an equitable remedy that, although compensable, are ultimately calculated by the Court. (See Order, December 23, 2015, [ECF No. 49] at 1 (citing, inter alia, Kapche v. Holder, 677 F.3d 454, 464 (D.C. Cir. 2012).) However, the jury calculates lost earnings awarded under USERRA. (Order, January 8, 2016, [ECF No. 59] at 1.) The jury did not find that Tridico successfully proved any economic harm. (See Verdict Form at 3.)

By contrast, the jury found in favor of the District on Tridicos USERRA claims. The jury determined that Tridico proved by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the District "subjected [Tridico] to unwelcome harassment based on his prior military service that was so severe or pervasive ... as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of [Tridicos] employment," and (2) Tridico "complained to his superiors about harassment ... based on his prior military service, and that [the District] subjected [Tridico] to an adverse employment action when it transferred him out of the VICE unit." (Id. at 2.) However, the jury did not find that Tridico proved causation–that his complaint about harassment "was a substantial or motivating factor" in the adverse employment action. (See id. ) Thus, the jury did not award any damages for Tridicos USERRA claim. (Id. at 3.)³

3 Lost earnings, but not pain and suffering, are compensable under USERRA. See 38 U.S.C. § 4323(d)(1). The $20,000 in compensatory damages could only have been awarded under Title VII.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has discretion to award a prevailing party reasonable attorneys fees and costs in Title VII and USERRA actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k) ("In any action or proceeding under [Title VII], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorneys fee"); 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(2) ("In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [USERRA] ..., the court may award any such person who prevails in such action or proceeding reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses"). A party seeking attorneys fees and expenses must file a motion to the Court which "specif[ies] the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the movant to the award" and stating the amount sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B).

In a fee petition, the moving party "bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours, and justifying the reasonableness of the rates." Covington v. Dist. of Columbia , 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The movant may satisfy this burden by presenting evidence of "the attorneys billing practices; the attorneys skill, experience, and reputation; and the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Id. After such evidence has been presented, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee petition to rebut the reasonableness of the requested award. Id. at 1109–10.

In evaluating a fee petition, the Court first determines whether the movant was the prevailing party, and second whether the movants fee request is reasonable. Does I, II, III v. D.C. , 448 F.Supp.2d 137, 140 (D.D.C. 2006). To determine whether the fee request is reasonable, courts engage in a three-step analysis: "(1) determination of the number of hours reasonably expended in litigation; (2) determination of a reasonable hourly rate or 'lodestar'; and (3) the use of multipliers as merited." Covington , 57 F.3d at 1107 (quoting Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc., et al. v. Hodel , 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir 1988) ). Even after courts determine the lodestar figure, they may reduce the overall award to account for, inter alia , limited success on the merits and unreasonable billing practices. See, e.g. , Craig v. Dist. of Columbia , No. CV 11–1200, 197 F.Supp.3d 268, 282, 2016 WL 3926253, at *9 (D.D.C. July 15, 2016).

ANALYSIS

The District does not dispute Tridicos entitlement to attorneys fees based on the jury's verdict in Tridicos favor on his Title VII claims. Nevertheless, the District argues that the award requested by Tridico is unreasonable on several grounds and proposes various reductions. After considering whether Tridico has met his initial burden to "document[ ] the appropriate hours, and [to] justify[ ] the reasonableness of the rates," see Covington , 57 F.3d at 1107, the Court will proceed to address the Districts specific arguments.

I. TRIDICOS DOCUMENTATION OF APPROPRIATE HOURS AND JUSTIFICATION OF REASONABLE RATES

In support of his fee petition, Tridico submitted the following evidence: (1) the declaration of Brian J. Markovitz, partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. ("JG & L"), the firm that represented Tridico on a contingency basis beginning October 2012; (2) the declaration of Nicholas Woodfield, the principal at the Employment Law Group, P.C.; (3) and the declaration of Linda Thatcher, an experienced employment litigator.

Over the first nine and a half pages of his declaration, Markovitz details the experience of the JG & L attorneys that worked on Tridicos case, attests to JG & Ls billing and record-keeping practices, and declares that those practices were followed in this case. (See Markovitz Decl. [ECF No. 75–4], ¶¶ 1–25.) Markovitz also submitted daily billing records for each JG & L professionals fees and the costs incurred by the law firm. (See id. at 12–39.) Both Woodfield and Thatchers declarations speak to the reasonableness of the fees requested by JG & L, based on their experience in employment litigation, their work with JG & L professionals, and the prevailing market rates for similar work. (See Woodfield Decl. [ECF No. 75–5]; Thatcher Decl. [ECF No. 75–6].) Thus, as to the legal work performed by JG & L, Tridico carried his initial burden of demonstrating "document[ation of] the appropriate hours, and justif[ication of] the reasonableness of the rates." See Covington , 57 F.3d at 1107.⁴

4 The Court could not fully evaluate Tridicos assertion that "deductions from [Tridicos] counsels invoices (over ninety nine (97) hours and $32,456.00 in fees) were made in order to avoid duplicate billing." (Pl.s Mot. at 16.) Some of the entries on the spreadsheet submitted by Markovitz are labeled "NC" for "no charge." Those entries, totaling $20,816.50, will not be included in the award. Other entries are labeled "R" for "reduced," but the number of hours purported to have been reduced for each entry was not detailed. Therefore, after subtracting the entries labeled "NC" and making the appropriate deductions based on the Districts objections, the Court will reduce Tridicos overall award by $11,639.50–the difference between Tridicos claimed $32,456.00 in deductions and the $20,816.50 in "no charge" fees.

By contrast, Markovitz devotes only two paragraphs of his declaration to justifying the fees incurred by Berry & Berry, PLLC, the firm that represented Tridico in his DCHRA claims before DCOHR. (See Markovitz Decl. ¶¶ 26–27.) Although Markovitz submits "recorded hours and expenses of work performed" by Berry & Berry, the request for fees for Berry & Berrys legal work is otherwise unsubstantiated. (See id. ) Based on the time records of Berry & Berry, the Court cannot discern even the full name of the attorneys who worked on Tridicos case, let alone the attorneys education and experience. Woodfield and Thatcher do not address the reasonableness of the fees reported by Berry & Berry or attest to those attorneys skill, expertise, or reputation. (See Woodfield Decl.; Thatcher Decl.)

With respect to the legal work performed by Berry & Berry, Tridico has therefore failed to carry his initial burden: Tridico submitted no evidence of "the [Berry & Berry] attorneys billing practices; the [Berry & Berry] attorneys skill, experience, and reputation." See Covington , 57 F.3d at 1107. As a result, the Court will reduce Tridicos requested fees by $20,163.00, the amount he requested for Berry & Berrys legal work.⁵ For the same reason, the Court will not award the requested $47.30 in costs attributed to Berry & Berrys representation of Tridico.

5 The District objects to the Berry & Berry fees on the ground that Tridicos representation before the DCOHR is non-compensable because Tridico did not pursue his DCHRA claims in federal court. (Def.s Oppn at 5.) As Tridico has failed to justify these fees in the first instance, the Court need not address this argument.

II. UNREASONABLE BILLING RATES

1. Applying 2016 USAO Rates to Work Performed Before 2016

Tridico seeks reimbursement of his attorneys fees incurred between 2012 and 2016 at the rates set by the District of Columbia United States Attorneys Office ("USAO") for work performed in 2016. (Pl.s Mot. at 12.)⁶ Tridico argues that applying the 2016 USAO rates to work done in prior years is appropriate to account for the Districts unnecessary delay in resolving the lawsuit and to account for the lost time-value of money. (Id. at 11–12.) The District argues that the fee award should be calculated using the rates in effect at the time the work was performed, which would constitute a $14,909.90 reduction in the fees that Tridico has requested. (Def.s Oppn at 7–9.)

6 Fee matrices set out the hourly fees charged by attorneys at various levels of experience in a particular community for the same type of work and offer a "somewhat crude" approximation of prevailing market rates. Snead v. Dist. of Columbia, 139 F.Supp.3d 375, 378 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Eley v. Dist. of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97, 101 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The Laffey Matrix, compiled by the USAO and updated annually to adjust for inflation, is the most commonly used fee matrix. Eley, 793 F.3d at 100–01. However, beginning on June 1, 2015, the USAO discontinued the Laffey Matrix in favor of a matrix that uses a new methodology. See USAO Attorneys Fees Matrix—2015—2017 n.4 (https://www.justice.gov/usaodc/file/889176/download) ("The methodology used to compute the rates in this matrix replaces that used prior to 2015, which started with the matrix of hourly rates developed in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 572 F.Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), affd in part, revd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3488, 87 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985), and then adjusted those rates based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for the Washington–Baltimore (DC–MD–VA–WV) area."). The Court will refer to the table of rates set by the USAO after June 1, 2015 as the "USAO Matrix," while acknowledging that the parties use "Laffey " to describe the rates prevailing in 2015 and 2016, as well as in prior years.

There is no dispute that the USAO and Laffey rates are appropriate in this case. Courts in this circuit have determined that Title VII actions are sufficiently complex to justify awarding attorneys fees at Laffey rates–and by implication at the USAO rates that replaced them. See Craig , 197 F.Supp.3d at 275, 2016 WL 3926253, at *3 (collecting cases). Indeed, the USAO Matrix applies to Title VII actions by its own terms. See USAO Attorneys Fees Matrix—2015–2017 n.1 ("The matrix is intended for use in cases in which a fee-shifting statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable" attorneys fees" (citing, as an example, Title VII)).

As to determining which years USAO and Laffey rates should apply to the legal work performed in this case, the D.C. Circuit has sanctioned the application of current prevailing rates–as opposed to the rates in effect when the work was performed–as a means of compensating the party seeking attorneys fees for the delay in receiving payment. See West v. Potter , 717 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2013). However, the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that there is a "strong presumption" in favor of the application of historical rates. Id. Here, the Court does not find that "compensation for delay is necessary to provide a reasonable fee" such that current USAO rates should be applied to past work. See id.

It does not appear that the resolution of this lawsuit was delayed. Tridico filed this lawsuit on June 21, 2013, and the matter went to trial on January 11, 2015.⁷ Although the Districts failure to attend settlement conferences is regrettable, that failure did not significantly delay the resolution of the litigation. While the District engaged in motions practice, it did not raise frivolous legal arguments, and the parties were able to narrow the issues that went to trial. Indeed, the District prevailed in part on its motion for summary judgment and on its position on various legal issues leading up to trial. The Court finds that there is no good reason to deviate from the "strong presumption" of applying historical rates here.⁸ The Court will therefore reduce Tridicos requested rates to reflect the USAO or Laffey rates in effect at the time the work was performed.

7 In the district court for the District of Columbia, the median time from filing a civil lawsuit until a disposition at trial was 37.4 months for the 12–month period ending June 30, 2016. See U.S. District Courts—Median Time Intervals from Filing to Disposition of Civil Cases (http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/stfj_c5_630.2016.pdf). At approximately 19 months, the resolution of Tridicos lawsuit was expeditious, as compared to other civil lawsuits that were resolved at trial in this district.

8 The notion that Tridico suffered a loss based on the time-value of money is undercut by the fact that his attorneys agreed to take the case on a contingency basis (i.e., with recovery only at the end of the lawsuit) and that, practically speaking, money had almost zero time-value from 2013 to the present.
--------

2. Fees on Fees

Tridico seeks $52,524.50 in fees for time spent preparing his motion for attorneys fees and reply to the Districts opposition brief. (See Ex. A, Markovitz Decl, at 24–25; Pl.s Reply at 22.) The District argues that Tridico should recover only 50% of the USAO rates for the work performed preparing the fee petition, reasoning that this legal work is "inherently less complicated than the underlying litigation" that justified full USAO or Laffey rates. (Def.s Oppn Br. at 14.) On that basis, the District proposes a reduction of $26,262.25. (See id. ) In support of its position, the District fails to point to any cases arising under Title VII, only citing to cases awarding fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1415. (See id. ; Pl.s Reply Br. at 21–22.)

There are instances where courts are justified in reducing the award requested for work in connection with a fee petition. See Craig , 197 F.Supp.3d at 282, 2016 WL 3926253, at *9. In Craig , for instance, the party seeking attorneys fees requested an additional 15% of the lodestar—over $80,000–as compensation for the time spent on the fee petition. Id. In that case, Judge Contreras found the fees on fees request to be excessive, especially given that some of the time spent on the fee petition was already counted towards the lodestar. Id. Here, instead of seeking a percentage of the total fee award, Tridico has detailed the time spent on his fee petition, and there has been no double-counting. On these facts, the Court finds no reason to reduce Tridicos award for time spent preparing his fee petition.

II. LIMITED SUCCESS

The District next argues that Tridicos fee request should be reduced by 10% to reflect his limited success in this litigation. (See Def.s Oppn Br. at 9–13.) The District notes that, although Tridico proved Title VII liability, the jury found for the District on Tridicos USERRA claims, and Tridico was not entitled to economic damages under Title VII or USERRA. (Id. ) In response, Tridico argues that "not only did [he] prevail on his USERRA claim, but such a claim was novel and hotly disputed." (Pl.s Reply Br. at 15.)

A litigant need not prevail on each and every claim to be considered the prevailing party in a Title VII lawsuit. See Ashraf–Has s an v. Embassy of Fr. in the U.S. , 189 F.Supp.3d 48, 55–56 (D.D.C. 2016). Although generally fees should not be awarded for unsuccessful claims, it is difficult to parse success for claims that "involve a common core of facts" or "related legal theories." Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434–35, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). In those cases, "[m]uch of counsels time will be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expended on a claim-by-claim basis" and courts should "focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation." Id. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933.

First, Tridico did not prevail on his USERRA claim. It is true, as Tridico points out, that the jury found that the District "subjected [Tridico] to unwelcome harassment based on his prior military service that was so severe or pervasive ... as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of [Tridicos] employment." (Id. (quoting Verdict Form at 2).) However, Tridico failed to prove causation: the jury did not find that his "complaint about harassment in the workplace based on his prior military service was a substantial or motivating factor in [the District] transferring [Tridico] out of the VICE unit." (See Verdict Form at 2.) The jury found no damages for lost earnings, the only type of damages Tridico sought under USERRA. (See id. at 3.)

In addition, Tridico failed to demonstrate that he suffered economic harm from the Districts conduct, as he alleged in his complaint. At trial, Tridico presented an economics expert witness who estimated that Tridico had lost $40,000 in overtime pay because after he was transferred out of the VICE unit. (See Report of Jerome S. Paige at 1.) Although the jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages, the jury found that Tridico suffered no lost earnings. (See id. )

Here, as is often the case where the various claims are interrelated, it is impossible to separate out the work done on unsuccessful claims. The Court must therefore "simply reduce the award to account for the limited success." See id. at 436–37, 103 S.Ct. 1933. In light of the fact that Tricico prevailed on only his Title VII claims, and only to the extent that he collected non-economic damages, the Court finds that a 10% reduction of the total fee award is appropriate.

III. UNREASONABLE BILLING PRACTICES

The District takes issue with two billing practices reflected in Tridicos invoice, arguing for (1) a 5% overall reduction to account for block billing, and (2) a 50% reduction in fees for travel time, which was billed at 100% the USAO and Laffey rates. (Def.s Oppn Br. at 1–2, 13.) Tridico vigorously disputes having block billed any entries but concedes that travel time should be billed at 50% of the normal billing rate. (Pl.s Reply Br. at 19–20). Because Tridicos billing records are in fact block-billed, the parties disagree on the precise amount of travel time to be discounted.

1. Block Billing

Block billing involves lumping multiple tasks into a single time entry, which can "mak[e] it impossible to evaluate their reasonableness." See Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee , 353 F.3d 962, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2004). While block billing is not "prohibit[ed]," courts often reduce fee awards as a result of it. See Role Models Am., Inc. , 353 F.3d at 971 ; Bennett v. Castro , 74 F.Supp.3d 382, 406 (D.D.C. 2014) ; In re InPhonic, Inc. , 674 F.Supp.2d 273, 289 (D.D.C. 2009) ; Summers v. Howard Univ. , 2006 WL 751316, at *7 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2006). Even if tasks are adequately described, there is simply no way for the Court to assess whether the time spent on each of those tasks was reasonable when they are lumped together. See Role Models Am., Inc. , 353 F.3d at 970 (court must "determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended") (quoting In re Olson , 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Where block billing is used infrequently, however, a reduction may not be warranted. See Fitts v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 680 F.Supp.2d 38, 42 (D.D.C. 2010) (declining a reduction where only a "relatively small fraction" of entries were block-billed).

There is no question that the JG & L time records are at least in part block-billed. It includes 50 entries of five hours or more, 19 of which are for more than eight hours, and many of which are block billed. (See, e.g. , Ex. A, Markovitz Decl. at at 3 (November 12, 2013 entry by MSS for 5.50 hours for "[r]eview pleadings and case file – and email opp counsel re: 25(f) conference; prepare draft Local Rule 16.3 joint report; send draft to opp counsel"); id. at 15 (December 8, 2015 entry by BJM for 10.40 hours for "[d]rafting pretrial statement, review of documents, drafting voir dire, jury instructions, etc., call and emails with opposing counsel re: status, drafting joint motion for extension for pretrial"); id. at 18 (December 22, 2015 entry by BJM for 8.20 hours for "[p]reparation for pretrial, research on jury determination issues, causation standard, and admissibility of EEOC findings, document review, meeting with SBV re: same and pretrial motions preparations"); id. at 23 (January 11, 2016 entry by BJM for 12 hours for "[t]ravel time to and from D.C. Federal Court; trial; trial preparation; discussion with BJM and VM"). The most frequent block-billed entries are those that include travel time. In fact, with only three exceptions, travel time is block-billed along with other tasks. (See, e.g. , Ex. A, Markovitz Decl. at 24 (eight out of nine travel entries on that page block-billed with time spent at trial). But see id. at 13 (November 12, 2015 entries by VXM).)

Because the block billed entries that do not include travel are relatively infrequent, the Court rejects the Districts request to reduce Tridicos overall award by 5%. Instead, as explained below, travel time will be disambiguated, and the rate for that time will be reduced.

2. Travel Time

Tridico concedes that his fee request improperly bills attorney travel time at a full rate, as opposed to the correct rate of 50%. (See Pls. Reply Br. at 19; see also McAllister v. Dist. of Columbia , 21 F.Supp.3d 94, 106 (D.D.C. 2014) ("[I]n this Circuit, travel time is compensated at half of the attorneys rate."). To account for this overbilling and to disambiguate the travel time from the other items in each entry, the District proposes estimating the round-trip from JG & Ls offices to the District Court at 1.5 hours. (See Def.s Oppn Br. at 13.). The Districts estimate of 1.5 hours comes directly from JG & Ls travel entries that were not block-billed. Tridico asks that the Court to estimate one hour for travel time, citing case law that estimated travel time for a different law firm "just across the District of Columbia border." (See Pl.s Reply Br. at 20 (citing Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia , 397 F.Supp.2d 12, 16 (D.D.C. 2005).)

The District has the better approach. As a result, the Court will estimate 1.5 hours for travel time on block-billed entries and reduce the rate for that time by 50%.

IV. UNREASONABLE COSTS

The District objects to three aspects of Tridicos request for costs, arguing that (1) Tridicos printing costs should be limited to $0.15 per page; (2) Tridico overbilled by $247.25 for court reporters and depositions; and (3) Tridico unreasonably billed certain parking expenses. (Def.s Oppn Br. at 13–14.)

1. Printing Costs

Tridico seeks reimbursement for printing costs at $0.15 for black-and-white copies and $0.75 for color copies. In response to the Districts objection, Tridico has conceded a $0.50 reduction for color copies to $0.25 per page, an amount approved in Salazar v. Dist. of Columbia , 991 F.Supp.2d 39, 64 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court accepts this concession, which amounts to a $12.50 reduction in printing costs. 2. Court Reporter and Deposition Costs

With his reply brief, Tridico submitted the receipts from the court-reporter service he used in connection with his depositions. (See Ex. 2 & 3, Pl.s Reply Br.) The figures are those that Tridico initially reported in his cost ledger, and the Court finds that those costs are reasonable. As a result, the Court will not make any reductions to the costs for court reporters and depositions.

3. Parking Costs

Finally, the District objects to various costs related to parking. First, the District objects to the fact that Mr. Vinnick sought $37.00 for two parking fees for a single day on December 22, 2015. (Def.s Oppn Br. at 14). Second, the District objects to parking expenses for Ms. Cherry on January 8, 2015, and January 16, 2015, arguing there is no evidence that Ms. Cherry actually traveled to court those days. (Id. )

As to the Districts first objection, Tridico concedes a reduction of $18.50 for the potentially erroneous double charge for Mr. Vinnicks parking. (Pl.s Reply Br. at 21.) As to the second objection, Tridico offers no response. (See id. ) The Court will eliminate the cost of the duplicative parking fee for Mr. Vinnick and the parking fee for the two days Ms. Cherrys presence in court is not accounted for, for a total reduction of $72.00.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Tridicos motion for attorneys fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Attachment

Hourly Rates Awarded for JG&L Professionals by Time Period Hourly Rate Professional Laffey 12-13 Laffey 13-14 Laffey 14-15 USAO 15-16 (6/1/12-5/31/13) (6/1/13-5/31/14) (6/1/14-5/31/15) (6/1/15-5/31/16) Brian J. Markovit $445.00 $450.00 $460.00 $455.00 Chelsea Fuentes - - $150.00 $154.00 Jessica A. Richardson - - $150.00 - Jamerra J. Cherry $145.00 $145.00 $150.00 $154.00 Jason M. Sarfati - - - $154.00 Matthew E. Kresier - - - $315.00 Meredith Schramm-Strosser - $250.00 $255.00 - Steven B. Vinick - - - $530.00 Veronica D. Jackson $290.00 $295.00 $300.00 $386.00 Guru Shanmugamani - - $255.00 $315.00 William J. Fuller - - - $154.00

Fees Requested and Awarded Date Prof. Description Code Hour Rate Fee Hours Rate Fee Awarded Note Request Request Request Awarded Awarded 10/23/12 VDJ Meeting with new client P. J. Tridicio; confer CD 2.70 386.00 1,042.20 2.70 290.00 783.00 with BJM regarding same; review calendar appointments; dictate notice of appearance letter. 10/24/12 VDJ Review documents from client; review letters re CD 1.20 386.00 463.20 1.20 290.00 348.00 notice of rep and retrieval of client files from prior counsel; email to client regarding files. 10/25/12 VDJ Draft letter of representation to former counsel CD 1.20 386.00 463.20 1.20 290.00 348.00 and DCOHR; revise same; review files from client; confer with ADG regarding new file. 10/26/12 VDJ Review correspondence from former counsel to CD 0.20 386.00 77.20 0.20 290.00 58.00 client; email to client regarding same. 10/28/12 VDJ Review correspondence from client regarding CD 1.20 386.00 463.20 1.20 290.00 348.00 files and documents; prepare same. 10/30/12 VDJ Review files. CD 0.70 386.00 270.20 0.70 290.00 203.00 11/02/12 VDJ Review documents from client and DCOHR CD 2.40 386.00 926.40 2.40 290.00 696.00 investigation; confer with BJM regarding files and status conference. 11/05/12 BJM Call with ALJ. CD 0.80 455.00 364.00 0.80 445.00 356.00 11/05/12 PNG Strategy discussion w/VDJ re DCOHR findings NC 0.30 386.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge and limitations of filing 11/05/12 VDJ Call with ALJ regarding status conference; CD 1.30 386.00 501.80 1.30 290.00 377.00 confer with BJM regarding same; confer with PG regarding DCOHR determination. 11/08/12 VDJ Confer with BJM and ADG regarding request CD/R 0.70 386.00 270.20 0.70 290.00 203.00 for RTS letter from EEOC. 11/09/12 VDJ Call with client regarding status and strategy CD 0.80 386.00 308.80 0.80 290.00 232.00

11/12/12 VDJ Review EEOC correspondence; email to BJM. CD/R 1.80 386.00 694.80 1.80 290.00 522.00 11/12/12 VDJ Draft discovery requests. D/R 1.40 386.00 540.40 1.40 290.00 406.00 11/13/12 BJM Meeting with VDJ, call with client re: strategy NC 0.30 455.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge and pursuing title vii claims. 11/13/12 VDJ Draft discovery. CD/R 2.10 386.00 810.60 2.10 290.00 609.00 11/13/12 VDJ Research on Title VII claims; call with client. D/R 1.50 386.00 579.00 1.50 290.00 435.00 11/15/12 VDJ Draft complaint; research regarding USERRA P 6.40 386.00 2,470.40 6.40 290.00 1856.00 claim. 11/19/12 VDJ Research and draft complaint; review file and P 3.40 386.00 1,312.40 3.40 290.00 986.00 BJM regarding same. 11/26/12 BJM Meeting with VDJ re: filing of complaint. CD 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 445.00 89.00 11/26/12 VDJ Review email from DCOHR; review draft MP 0.40 386.00 154.40 0.40 290.00 116.00 motion for stay; file same. 11/27/12 VDJ Email with DCOHR; review order. CD 0.50 386.00 193.00 0.50 290.00 145.00 11/28/12 BJM Review of draft of complaint. P 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 445.00 178.00 11/28/12 VDJ Review and revise complaint P/R 3.20 386.00 1,235.20 3.20 290.00 928.00 11/29/12 VDJ Call with client regarding draft complaint; revise P 3.90 386.00 1,505.40 3.90 290.00 1131.00 same. 11/30/12 VDJ Call with Mindy Weinstein of EEOC; call with CD 1.20 386.00 463.20 1.20 290.00 348.00 David Gonzalez of EEOC; draft email to above regarding conversation; confer with BJM; email to client regarding status. 11/30/12 VDJ Call with client regarding complaint draft; revise P/R 3.40 386.00 1,312.40 3.40 290.00 986.00 same. 12/03/12 VDJ Complete revisions to draft complaint. P 0.70 386.00 270.20 0.70 290.00 203.00 12/10/12 VDJ Research CourtLink for prior counsel's clients NC 1.80 386.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge for breach of fiduciary duty; confer with JJC 12/24/12 JJC Research John Berry, Esquire. Re: background, NC 0.80 154.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge practice history, case types and education. Requested by Veronica Jackson. 01/08/13 VDJ Review notes from client regarding recent CD 1.70 386.00 656.20 1.70 290.00 493.00 harassment/retaliation at work by Sgt. Drummond; research exhaustion requirements for continuing action.

01/15/13 VDJ Review EEOC complaint; draft amended P 1.70 386.00 656.20 1.70 290.00 493.00 complaint. 02/01/13 VDJ Review file regarding amended complaint; P 1.70 386.00 656.20 1.70 290.00 493.00 confer with prior counsel regarding same. 02/20/13 VDJ Call with David Gonzalez at EEOC; call with CD/R 0.40 386.00 154.40 0.40 290.00 116.00 ALJ. 02/20/13 VDJ Draft amended complaint. P/R 0.80 386.00 308.80 0.80 290.00 232.00 02/22/13 VDJ Call with client regarding retaliation. CD/R 1.40 386.00 540.40 1.40 290.00 406.00 06/18/13 BJM Review of complaint. P 1.00 455.00 455.00 1.00 450.00 450.00 06/18/13 VDJ Revise complaint; call with client; email to BJM. P 0.40 386.00 154.40 0.40 295.00 118.00 06/18/13 VDJ Revise complaint. P 0.60 386.00 231.60 0.60 295.00 177.00 06/19/13 BJM Meeting re: complaint language. P 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 450.00 90.00 06/19/13 VDJ Review complaint comments from BJM. P 0.50 386.00 193.00 0.50 295.00 147.50 09/04/13 MSS Determine proper date of service for complaint P 0.10 315.00 31.50 0.10 250.00 25.00 09/10/13 MSS Enter appearance in case MP 0.10 315.00 31.50 0.10 250.00 25.00 09/16/13 BJM Review of order. CD 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 450.00 90.00 09/16/13 MSS Review court correspondence and confer with P 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00 BJM and GLC re: service of process 10/21/13 BJM Call with opposing counsel re: extension for P 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 450.00 90.00 answer. 11/12/13 MSS Review pleadings and case file &m and email opp MP 5.50 315.00 1,732.50 5.50 250.00 1375.00 counsel re: 26(f) conference; prepare draft Local Rule 16.3 joint report; send draft to opp counsel 11/14/13 MSS Review Opp counsel's draft of Local Rule 16.3 MP 1.20 315.00 378.00 1.20 250.00 300.00 Joint Status Report 11/18/13 MSS Research the ability to bring DCHRA claims CD 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 250.00 75.00 11/18/13 MSS Teleconf with client re: status of the case and MP 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 250.00 625.00 scheduling conference; review case file; finalize draft of local rule 16.3 joint status order. 1/20/13 MSS Review BJM edits to Rule 16.3 joint report MP 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 250.00 200.00 draft; send to Opp counsel for review; file document 11/26/13 MSS Review protective order draft from opp counsel MP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00

12/03/13 MSS Prep for scheduling conference tomorrow. HE 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 250.00 150.00 12/04/13 BJM Call with MSS re: status conference. HE 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 445.00 89.00 12/04/13 MSS Travel to and from scheduling conference; prep HE 3.40 315.00 1,071.00 1.9 250.00 475.00 Reduced by 1.5 for conference; attend scheduling conference; hours (travel time) teleconf with BJM re scheduling conference; email with client re same; teleconf with client 12/04/13 MSS Review and edit protective order. MP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 250.00 75.00 12/04/13 MSS Travel to and from scheduling conference Travel 1.5 125.00 187.50 Travel time at 50% 12/05/13 BJM Review of proposed protective order and edits MP 0.50 455.00 227.50 0.50 445.00 222.50 made. 12/10/13 MSS Email to client re information needed for D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 250.00 250.00 discovery; listen to audio recordings; discussion with BJM re same 12/12/13 MSS Email correspondence re: info needed for intitial D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 250.00 250.00 disclosures; research initial disclosures 12/13/13 MSS Draft initial disclosures; teleconf with client re: D 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 250.00 200.00 same 12/16/13 BJM Review of initial disclosures. D 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 450.00 90.00 12/16/13 MSS Draft initial disclosures; finalize and send same D 4.20 315.00 1,323.00 4.20 250.00 1050.00 12/30/13 MSS Review emails and documents sent by Tridico; D 0.90 315.00 283.50 0.90 250.00 225.00 email to Opp counsel re: good faith letter regarding Rule 26 initial disclosures. 12/30/13 MSS Phone call with Opp counsel re: protective order MP 0.10 315.00 31.50 0.10 250.00 25.00 12/31/13 MSS Phone call with BJM re: protective order.; send MP 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 250.00 200.00 draft back to oppposing counsel; finalize and file protective order 01/14/14 MSS Research for supporting case law in prep for D 1.70 315.00 535.50 1.70 250.00 425.00 discovery. 01/14/14 MSS Research re: dispositive motions practice MP 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 250.00 250.00 01/21/14 MSS Review transcriptions of audio files; email D 2.30 315.00 724.50 2.30 250.00 575.00 correspondence to BJM re: same 01/24/14 MSS Teleconf with client re facts and information CD 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 250.00 150.00

01/27/14 MSS Draft discovery D 1.60 315.00 504.00 1.60 250.00 400.00 01/28/14 MSS Draft discovery; research re same D 1.10 315.00 346.50 1.10 250.00 275.00 01/29/14 MSS Discovery D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 250.00 250.00 01/30/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: strategy and current CD 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 250.00 100.00 situation at work.; discussion with BJM re: same. 01/31/14 MSS Draft Discovery D 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 250.00 175.00 02/03/14 MSS Draft discovery (complete first draft of ROGs, D 2.70 315.00 850.50 2.70 250.00 675.00 send to BJM for review) 02/04/14 BJM Review of draft of interrogatories. D 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 450.00 180.00 02/04/14 MSS Review BJM comments to ROGS. D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00 02/05/14 MSS Revise discovery per BJM review; draft D 3.30 315.00 1,039.50 3.30 250.00 825.00 remaining discovery 02/07/14 BJM Review of RPDs to defendant. D 0.30 455.00 136.50 0.30 450.00 135.00 02/07/14 MSS Incorporate BJM edits; finalized RPDs D 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 255.00 153.00 02/26/14 MSS Review correspondence from client re union NC 0.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge representation for personnel action taken b/c of DUI; call with client re: same 02/27/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: union representation in NC 0.40 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge the disciplanary action 03/13/14 MSS Email correspondence to Opp counsel re: D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00 discovery 03/18/14 MSS Draft good faith letter to Opp counsel re: D 1.30 315.00 409.50 1.30 250.00 325.00 outstanding discovery; send letter re: same; review discovery requests by D 03/20/14 MSS Call with client and BJM re: discovery and D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 250.00 100.00 depositions 03/31/14 MSS Email to M. Mullen re: oustanding discovery; D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 250.00 100.00 call with client re: same 04/02/14 MSS Initial review of D's document production to D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00 insure all the files worked 04/04/14 MSS Draft email to Opp counsel re: overdue D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 250.00 100.00 discovery; research FRCP re requirements to send motion to compel to opp counsel prior to filing; send email 04/07/14 MSS Email correspondence with Opp counsel re: D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00 discovery issues

04/09/14 MSS Call with opp counsel re: them not having the D/R 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 250.00 125.00 interrogatory responses back yet. 04/10/14 MSS Review email correspondence from client re: D 0.10 315.00 31.50 0.10 250.00 25.00 discovery; respond to same correspondence re: discovery 04/15/14 MSS Meeting with client to discuss depositions and D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 250.00 100.00 discovery 04/17/14 MSS Teleconf with opp counsel re: discovery D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 250.00 100.00 04/21/14 MSS Draft joint motion for extension of discovery D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 250.00 125.00 deadlines 04/22/14 MSS Finalize draft of joint motion to extend discovery D 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 250.00 75.00 deadlines, send to Opp counsel. 04/28/14 MSS Finalized latest draft of joint motion to modify D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 250.00 50.00 the scheduling order; sent to Opp counsel for review. 04/30/14 MSS Review D's responses to discovery D 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 250.00 200.00 05/01/14 MSS Review D's discovery production; research cases D 4.20 315.00 1,323.00 4.20 250.00 1050.00 in preparation for good faith letter 05/02/14 MSS Continue drafting good faith discovery letter; D 4.10 315.00 1,291.50 4.10 250.00 1025.00 start drafting responses to Def's discovery requests 05/05/14 BJM Review of letter to opposing counsel re: D 1.10 455.00 500.50 1.10 450.00 495.00 discovery deficiencies, research on case law re: duty to answer interrogatories viewed as over broad to the fullest extent possible. 05/05/14 MSS Draft discovery responses D 5.50 315.00 1,732.50 5.50 250.00 1375.00 05/06/14 MSS Draft discovery; teleconf with Opp Counsel D 2.60 315.00 819.00 2.60 250.00 650.00 Aaron Finkhousen re: same 05/13/14 MSS Draft responses to discovery D 3.50 315.00 1,102.50 3.50 250.00 875.00 05/13/14 MSS Review latest email correspondence from client NC 0.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 05/13/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: latest emails he sent to NC 0.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge me

05/21/14 JAR Telephone call to Mr. Tridico re: paystubs. D 0.10 154.00 15.40 0.10 150.00 15.00 05/22/14 JAR Telephone call and e-mail to Mr. Tridico re: D 0.20 154.00 30.80 0.20 150.00 30.00 paystubs. 05/22/14 JAR Download client's 2011-2014 paystubs from D 1.30 154.00 200.20 1.30 150.00 195.00 D.C. Government portall website and review. 05/23/14 BJM Meeting with MSS re: discovery. D 0.50 455.00 227.50 0.50 450.00 225.00 05/23/14 JAR Download client's 2007-2014 paystubs from D 0.50 154.00 77.00 0.50 150.00 75.00 D.C. Government portall website and review. 05/23/14 MSS Confer with BJM re: responses to discovery D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 250.00 125.00 05/27/14 JAR Continue to download client's 2007-2014 D 1.00 154.00 154.00 1.00 150.00 150.00 paystubs from D.C. Government portall website. 05/28/14 JAR Download client's 2007-2014 paystubs from D 1.00 154.00 154.00 1.00 150.00 150.00 D.C. Government portall website and review. 05/28/14 MSS Discovery answers D 1.40 315.00 441.00 1.40 250.00 350.00 06/05/14 MSS Email correspondence with Opp counsel re: D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 discovery and noting depositions 06/06/14 MSS Draft discovery answers to ROGS; review client D 1.60 315.00 504.00 1.60 255.00 408.00 medical records 06/10/14 MSS Discovery responses D 1.50 315.00 472.50 1.50 255.00 382.50 06/11/14 BJM Review of client's interrogatory answers. D 0.70 455.00 318.50 0.70 460.00 322.00 06/11/14 MSS Document review in prep for doc production D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 06/12/14 BJM Review of interrogatory answers, research on D 1.90 455.00 864.50 1.90 460.00 874.00 document requests in interrogatories, review of documents for production purposes. 06/12/14 MSS Review D's latest document production D 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 255.00 765.00 06/12/14 MSS Draft P's responses do D's RPDs D 1.50 315.00 472.50 1.50 255.00 382.50 06/12/14 MSS Teleconf and email correspondence to Opp D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 Counsel re: Octo email search 06/12/14 MSS Review and revise BJM's edits to first draft of D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 ROGs

06/12/14 MSS Prepare and research responses to D's response D 0.90 315.00 283.50 0.90 255.00 229.50 to our good faith letter in preparation for tomorrow's teleconf 06/13/14 BJM Review of discovery answers, call with DC D 0.70 455.00 318.50 0.70 460.00 322.00 counsel re: discovery dispute and depositions. 06/13/14 MSS Prep and research for call with opp counsel re: D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 good faith letter 06/13/14 MSS Review D's doc production D 1.60 315.00 504.00 1.60 255.00 408.00 06/13/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: extra document requests D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 06/16/14 BJM Review of discovery production. D 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 06/16/14 MSS Discovery &m prepare doc production D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 06/17/14 MSS Finalize RPD responses D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 06/18/14 MSS Teleconf with Opp counsel: follow up to last D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 week's good faith discovery discussion; Teleconf with client re: discovery 06/19/14 MSS Finalize ROGS for delivery D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 255.00 102.00 06/24/14 MSS Email to opp counsel re: discovery D 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 07/11/14 MSS Email correspondence with client re: deposition D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 255.00 102.00 and need to confirm dates for depo; teleconf with client re: depo dates 08/04/14 MSS Email to client re: DC's search results regarding D 0.10 315.00 31.50 0.10 250.00 25.00 his court complaint being circulated around the office. 08/15/14 MSS Discussion with BJM re: prepping for depo; D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 listen to oral recording produced; review transcripts of internal EEO interviews 08/20/14 MSS Prepare for P's deposition; review discovery; D 1.30 315.00 409.50 1.30 255.00 331.50 send email to client re: preparing for deposition 08/22/14 MSS Final prep and attend deposition D 8.50 315.00 2,677.50 8.50 255.00 2167.50 08/25/14 BJM Meeting with MSS re: client's deposition, and D 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 460.00 184.00 other potential depositions as well as expert deadlines. 08/25/14 MSS Confer with BJM re: depo D/R 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50

08/26/14 MSS Email correspondence to opp counsel re: D 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 255.00 204.00 extension of expert deadline; review medical records and track down previous therapist; draft motion for extension of expert deadlines 08/27/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: research; review docs D/R 3.30 315.00 1,039.50 3.30 255.00 841.50 from client again; update discovery responses 08/28/14 MSS Documents that need to be produced; D 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 255.00 178.50 supplemental discovery responses 09/02/14 MSS Call to Dr's office re: Tridico; confer with BJM D 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 255.00 204.00 re: other depositions; draft depo notice; email correspondence to Opp counsel re: depo of Ofc. Alberti; email correspondence with client re: follow-up on additional discovery points 09/03/14 MSS Call with Gina Sangster, treating LCSW D/R 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 09/12/14 MSS Draft supplemental discovery respones D 0.90 315.00 283.50 0.90 255.00 229.50 09/15/14 MSS Finalize supplemental discovery answers; call D 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 with Opp Counsel re: depositions; confer with BJM re: same 09/16/14 MSS Teleconf with Expert re: economic loss report NC 0.10 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 09/18/14 JJC Revise and edit Notice of Deposition and D 0.50 154.00 77.00 0.50 150.00 75.00 Subpoena for Alberti. 09/18/14 MSS Call to opp counsel re: scheduling depositions D 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 09/19/14 MSS Call with Richard Lockley (expert) re: damages; NC 0.90 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge call with client re: same 09/23/14 MSS Review audio recording for supplemental D/R 1.40 315.00 441.00 1.40 255.00 357.00 interrogatory responses 09/25/14 MSS Email to expert re: expert designation NC 0.40 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 09/26/14 MSS Arrange subpoena and service for Officer Alberti D/R 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 255.00 204.00 09/29/14 MSS Prepare and finalize subpoena for Alberti D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 10/02/14 MSS Send supplemental documents to defendant; read D 0.90 315.00 283.50 0.90 255.00 229.50 deposition transcript 10/03/14 MSS Review deposition transcript D 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 250.00 625.00 10/06/14 MSS Continue reading deposition transcript. D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50

10/07/14 MSS Draft questions for Ofc. Alberti depo D 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 255.00 178.50 10/08/14 BJM Review of deposition outline from MSS for D 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 deposition of Officer Albertini. 10/08/14 MSS Continue depo prep for officer alberti; continue D 5.00 315.00 1,575.00 5.00 255.00 1275.00 reviewing Tridico depo transcript 10/09/14 BJM Meeting with MSS re: deposition, attending D/R 3.50 455.00 1,592.50 3.50 460.00 1610.00 deposition of Officer Alberti. 10/09/14 MSS Prep for deposition; finish reviewing Tridico's D 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 255.00 637.50 deposition transcript for erratta; 10/10/14 MSS Follow-up email to Opp Counsel re: additional D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 documents to be produced in response to our RPD request. 10/22/14 MSS Errata sheet for client D 1.60 315.00 504.00 1.60 255.00 408.00 10/22/14 MSS Review transcript from 3rd party witness, alberti D 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 10/23/14 MSS Review alberti depo; send witness email re: D 2.30 315.00 724.50 2.30 255.00 586.50 errata sheet 10/24/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: deposition errata&m D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 email to client re: same 10/27/14 MSS Email correspondence with client re: depo; call D 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 with client re: same 10/28/14 MSS Call with expert re: bill; call with client re: same NC 0.30 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 10/30/14 MSS Finalize the errata sheet; meet with client to sign D 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 255.00 204.00 errata sheet 11/05/14 MSS Research methods of stipulating authenticity D 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 11/06/14 MSS Review latest document production from DC D 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 255.00 178.50 11/11/14 BJM Review of depositions, research on RFAs for D 1.70 455.00 773.50 1.70 460.00 782.00 authentication purposes. 11/11/14 MSS Teleconf with client re: update on discovery and D 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 255.00 102.00 discussion of future motions. 11/13/14 MSS Email to Opp counsel re: stipulations D 0.10 315.00 31.50 0.10 255.00 25.50 11/18/14 BJM Call with economic expert. NC 0.20 455.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 12/08/14 BJM Call with DCAG re: conference call with Judge D 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 Huvelle.

12/09/14 BJM Call with client re: status and mediation. D 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 12/12/14 VXM Discussed district court admission with BJM and NC 0.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DC Bar requirements. 12/17/14 VXM Began review of pleadings in case and DCOHR CD 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 docs and medical records. 12/19/14 BJM Demand to MPD counsel for mediation. ADR 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 12/23/14 VXM Continued review of discovery responses and D 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 255.00 510.00 began reading through client's deposition. 12/23/14 VXM Reviewed and edited motion for pro hac and MP 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 255.00 153.00 edited exhibit declaration and forms for submission. 12/23/14 VXM Reviewed local DDC Rules for pro hoc process NC 0.30 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge for compliance. 12/30/14 BJM Call with VM re: mediation statement. ADR 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 12/30/14 CXF Read complaint; Initial phone meeting with ADR 4.30 154.00 662.20 4.30 150.00 645.00 Brian Markovitz and Vijay Mani regarding the background of the case and what needs to be included in the draft of mediation statement. Read through the depositions of Plaintiff and Alberti 12/30/14 VXM Began review of discovery responses and depo ADR 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 to familiarize with case and prepare for mediation. 12/30/14 VXM Communication with law clerk concerning ADR 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 mediation statement. 12/30/14 VXM Meeting with BJM regarding mediation ADR 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 255.00 102.00 statement, case history, and model sample. 12/30/14 VXM Sent law clerk settlement demand, relevant ADR 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 transcripts, and sample statements for review and for drafting mediation statement.

12/31/14 CXF Continued to work on the Mediation Statement. ADR/R 3.30 154.00 508.20 3.30 150.00 495.00 Read new settlement offer. Read Defendant's responses to interrogatories and the EEOC decision, drafting mediation statement. 12/31/14 VXM Read and sent analysis from letter of ADR 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 determination to C. Fuentes. 01/05/15 BJM Deposition review and drafting mediation ADR 2.30 455.00 1,046.50 2.30 460.00 1058.00 statement. 01/05/15 CXF Editing mediation letter and preparing exhibits ADR 0.40 154.00 61.60 0.40 150.00 60.00 for the judge 01/05/15 VXM Completed latest revisions and edits to mediation ADR 1.30 315.00 409.50 1.30 255.00 331.50 statement. 01/05/15 VXM Organized and gathered all exhibits and covers ADR 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 to accompany mediation statement. 01/05/15 VXM Proofread and finalized mediation statement for ADR 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 filing. 01/05/15 VXM Meeting with Chelsea Fuentes regarding review ADR 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 of statement, and preparation of final exhibits to mediation statement. 01/06/15 CXF Finalized and scanned exhibits to the mediation ADR 1.30 154.00 200.20 1.30 154.00 200.20 statement. Final proofread of mediation statement. 01/06/15 VXM Met with J. Richardson regarding verification of ADR 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 all exhibits to be sent for mediation to Judge Kay. 02/05/15 BJM Review of mediation statement. ADR 0.50 455.00 227.50 0.50 460.00 230.00 02/05/15 VXM Communication with G. Chandler to ensure ADR 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 updated exhibits are sent with mediation statement. 02/24/15 BJM Preparation and travel for mediation with Judge NC 6.70 455.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge Kaye. 02/24/15 VXM Calendared all items discussed in mediation and ADR 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 began review of docs for settlement demand per discussion with opposing counsel.i

02/24/15 VXM Preparation and travel for mediation with Judge NC 6.70 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge Kaye. 02/27/15 VXM Began drafting settlement demand breaking ADR 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 down elements in case needed to prevail and justifying demand per discussion at mediation. 03/02/15 BJM Review of consent motion. MP 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 460.00 92.00 03/02/15 VXM Communication with BJM regarding drafting MP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 motion for Judge Huvelle. 03/02/15 VXM Reviewed all communication between counsel, MP 1.50 315.00 472.50 1.50 255.00 382.50 reviewed scheduling order and all deadlines; drafted motion to modify scheduling order and proposed order, and sent to BJM for review and review by opposing counsel 03/03/15 VXM Reviewed and edited motion to modify MP 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 255.00 102.00 scheduling order and order. 03/03/15 VXM Communication with M. Mullen (opposing MP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 counsel) regarding approval for motion to be filed. 03/03/15 VXM Follow-up communication with Owen Williams MP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 regarding approval for motion to be filed. 03/03/15 VXM Finalized motion and order post-DC Gov review MP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 and prepared for filing. 03/23/15 BJM Review of statement to Martha Mullen re: ADR 0.30 455.00 136.50 0.30 460.00 138.00 settlement. 04/29/15 VXM Discussion with BJM regarding request for MP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 extension and previous communication with opposing counsel. 05/01/15 VXM Discussion with BJM re: cross-motion for SJ. MP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 05/18/15 BJM Review of motion for sj, research on MP 1.50 455.00 682.50 1.50 460.00 690.00 worksharing agreement between DCOHR and EEOC.

05/20/15 VXM Began outline of facts and elements needed for MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 255.00 510.00 each separate claim in preparation for opposition to MSJ. 05/20/15 VXM Researching issue of USERRA hostile work MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 255.00 510.00 environment and whether case law supporting HWE claims. 05/28/15 VXM Communication with opposing counsel regarding MP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 255.00 51.00 motion for extension and consent. 05/28/15 VXM Researched work share agreement regarding MP 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 255.00 255.00 DCHRC and procedural arguments for MSJ opp. argument subsection 1. 06/02/15 VXM Review of latest order and recalendaring of MSJ MP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 deadlines. 06/04/15 VXM Continued review of docs, depos, discovery MP 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 responses for excerpts and support for each element of each claim in complaint for opposition to MSJ. 06/04/15 VXM Researched cases to support that severity of MP 1.50 315.00 472.50 1.50 315.00 472.50 harassment claim under religious discrimination may include comments as in this case. 06/08/15 VXM Tridico review of depos MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 06/09/15 VXM Meeting with BJM on Tridico update MP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 06/09/15 VXM Tridico review of all facts in depos and docs, MP 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 corresponding to each paragraph in SOMF from D, and evaluation of disputed and unaddressed facts. 06/09/15 VXM Tridico work on SOMFD MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 06/12/15 VXM Research DC minimum regulations on initial D 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 315.00 252.00 disclosures and discovery 06/12/15 VXM Tridico review of depositions, drafting MP 5.00 315.00 1,575.00 5.00 315.00 1575.00 oppositions to SOMF & MSJ 06/15/15 VXM Tridico depo notes for Opposition to SOMF & MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 MSJ

06/15/15 VXM Reviewed deposition of Officer Alberti and MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 taking deposition notes and excerpts for Motion for Summary Judgment Opposition 06/16/15 VXM Tridico SOMFD MP 4.00 315.00 1,260.00 4.00 315.00 1260.00 06/19/15 VXM Completed drafting revisions to introduction, MP 4.00 315.00 1,260.00 4.00 315.00 1260.00 procedural background, and fact statement for opposition to msj and mtd, and proofread same. 06/19/15 VXM Completed all citations and revisions to MP 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 statement of material facts in dispute and proofread same and prepared for BJM review. 06/21/15 VXM Completed drafting standard of review for msj MP 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 and mtd opposition and researched issue of DCHRA claims being barred if a remedy is sought with DCOHR. 06/21/15 VXM Reviewed all adminstrative documents and MP 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 began drafting argument subsection on exhaustion in EEO for title VII and retaliation claims. 06/22/15 BJM Editing opposition to motion for summary MP 3.70 455.00 1,683.50 3.70 455.00 1683.50 judgment, meeting with VXM re: same, review of SOMF, research on USERRA HWE claims 06/22/15 MEK Reviewed Def's SJ argument on Negilgent NC 1.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge Retention; Researched Negligent Retention and ability to bring claim in addition to Title VII cases; Reviewed Def's case law citations; Drafted short argument as to why a negligent retention claim can be coupled with Title VII claims 06/22/15 VXM Researched cases that reflect that an EEOC MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 complaint need not allege retaliation if the facts encompass a retaliation claim.

06/22/15 VXM Researched elements for a USERRA MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 discrimination claim and cases supporting discrimination based on demotion and other adverse actions and disparate treatment. 06/22/15 VXM Completed drafting argument subsection that MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 there are material facts in dispute for title vii and userra discrimination claims. 06/22/15 VXM Researched retaliation elements alligned with MP 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 facts in this case and completed drafting argument subsections for disputed facts for reprisal claims under USERRA and Title VII. 06/22/15 VXM Gathered all exhibits, finalized all edits based on MP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 BJM comments, proofread entire opposition and MPA and SOMFD, and filed all with district court. 06/22/15 VXM Researched severity and frequency cases for MP/R 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 hostile work environment claims and completed argument subsection on USERRA and title VII hostile work environment claims. 06/22/15 VXM Completed drafting argument subsection on NC 0.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge negligent retention basaed on MK research. 07/01/15 BJM Call with opposing counsel re: extension of time MP 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 455.00 91.00 to file reply 07/10/15 MEK Pulled RTS Letter from DOJ; Pulled original MP 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 complaint; Verified dates for filing within 90 days of issuance; Forwarded RTS Letter to opposing counsel 07/15/15 BJM Call with client re: status of the motions, email to MP 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 455.00 182.00 clerk re: extension. 07/15/15 VXM Review of latest motion from DC and lack of MP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 consent for same. 07/17/15 VXM Reviewed reply to MSJ opp to dermine if MP 1.50 315.00 472.50 1.50 315.00 472.50 surreply needed.

07/17/15 VXM Discussed new arguments and other issues raised MP 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 by DC in reply and whether warrants a surreply with BJM. 09/01/15 BJM Review of summary judgment opinion. MP 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 455.00 182.00 09/02/15 VXM Call with BJM on Tridico CD 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 09/02/15 VXM Tridico review and notes regarding memo MP 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 opposition 09/11/15 BJM Drafting consent motion to reschedule status CD 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 455.00 91.00 conference. 09/22/15 BJM Meeting with DCAG re: mediation. ADR/R 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 455.00 91.00 09/22/15 BJM Travel and attending status conference. HE/R 3.20 455.00 1,456.00 1.7 455.00 773.50 Reduced by 1.5 hours (travel time) 09/22/15 BJM Travel to status conference Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 10/02/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on Tridico mediation ADR 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 10/12/15 VXM USDC DC application NC 0.60 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 10/30/15 VXM Reviewed docs from discovery responses to see T 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 if any hearing use narratives in IROG responses to help show hostile work environment and retaliation. 11/05/15 VXM Reviewed all remaining deadlines and trial T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 details to create timeline of tasks to be prepared leading up to trial. 11/05/15 VXM Reviewed opposition to MSJ to prepare issues to T 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 develop and create trial strategy when meeting with S. Vinick. 11/06/15 BJM Meeting with VXM and SBV re: trial T 0.50 455.00 227.50 0.50 455.00 227.50 preparation, document review, pretrial order. 11/06/15 VXM Reviewed memo opinion and outined each claim T 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 and summary of each claim to be tried for prep meeting with SBV and BJM. 11/06/15 VXM Reviewed mediation order and pretrial T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 scheduling order, and emailed updated dates for all deadlines to SBV and BJM.

11/06/15 VXM Meeting with SBV and BJM regarding case T/R 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 315.00 252.00 claims and damages, and timeline of deadlines and tasks. 11/10/15 VXM Review of correspondence from BJM to M. ADR 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 Mullen and comment on same re: mediation and previous demand. 11/10/15 VXM Discussion with BJM concerning opposing ADR 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 counsel response and resent demand letter. 11/11/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on mediation and ADR 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 communication with Judge Kay. 11/11/15 VXM Reviewed opposition to SJ, memo opinion and ADR 1.80 315.00 567.00 1.80 315.00 567.00 made notes for mediation, continued reading original demand. 11/12/15 BJM Preparation, travel and attending mediation with ADR 4.20 455.00 1,911.00 2.7 455.00 1228.50 Reduced by 1.5 federal magistrate. hours (travel time) 11/12/15 BJM Travel to mediation Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 11/12/15 VXM Travel to mediation in Judge Kay's Chambers at NC 0.80 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DDC. 11/12/15 VXM Travel to JGL from mediation in DDC. NC 0.80 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 11/12/15 VXM Mediation at Judge Kay's chambers. NC 3.00 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 11/17/15 VXM Discussion with BJM and A. Taylor re: T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 deadlines with rescheduled pretrial conference and new calendared items. 11/17/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on in limine motions and T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 trial brief and need for same. 11/17/15 VXM Reviewed model and drafting initial portions of T 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 pretrial statement. 11/18/15 VXM Gathered evidence and identified each for T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 inclusion in joint pretrial statement. 11/19/15 JJC Pre-Trial Statement Prep meeting with VXM. T 0.30 154.00 46.20 0.30 154.00 46.20 11/19/15 VXM Researched dates for pretrial deadlines based on T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 source email and recalendared and confirmed with BJM. 11/19/15 VXM Discussed with M. Mullen DC's request for T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 extension

11/20/15 VXM Meeting with J. Cherry regarding facts of case T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 and joint pretrial statement tasks. 11/23/15 BJM Meeting with VXM re: pretrial. T 0.20 455.00 91.00 0.20 455.00 91.00 11/23/15 VXM Mediation communication with opposing ADR/R 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 counsel. 11/24/15 JJC Trial preparation meeting with Vijay Mani. T 0.10 154.00 15.40 0.10 154.00 15.40 11/29/15 VXM Continued work on pretrial statement and in T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 limine motion. 11/30/15 VXM Meeting with J. Cherry on outstanding tasks for T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 joint pretrial statement. 12/01/15 BJM Call with opposing counsel re: settlement, call ADR 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 455.00 182.00 with client re: defendant's proposal. 12/01/15 BJM Call with VXM re: pretrial statement and T 0.30 455.00 136.50 0.30 455.00 136.50 motions in limine, research on jury instructions. 12/02/15 VXM Meeting with BJM and communication with J. T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 255.00 76.50 Cherry on pretrial statement. 12/02/15 VXM Meeting with SBV re: trial prep, in limine T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 255.00 127.50 strategy. 12/02/15 VXM Researched rules 401, 403, 603 and 608 for T 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 motion in limine and cases in DDC. 12/02/15 VXM Continued drafting argument section and revised T 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 facts for motion in limine and trial motions. 12/03/15 JMS Meeting with VXM to review hostile work T 0.30 154.00 46.20 0.30 154.00 46.20 environment, USERRA, and retaliation claims, + future drafting of opposition to motion in limine. 12/03/15 VXM Review of D's motion in limine and discussion T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 with BJM on same. 12/03/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on timeline for pretrial T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 statement, and merits of motion in limine. 12/03/15 VXM Meeting with J. Sarfati re: merits of motion in T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 limine, facts of case, opposition arguments and timeline for filing. 12/04/15 JMS Review of Defendant's Motion in Limine to T 0.30 154.00 46.20 0.30 154.00 46.20 exclude Officer Alberti's testimony for drafting opposition.

12/04/15 JMS Review of 7 DDC cases interpreting 401-404 in T 0.60 154.00 92.40 0.60 154.00 92.40 "me too" testimony context. 12/04/15 JMS Drafting and revision of Draft #1 of Plaintiff's T 4.80 154.00 739.20 4.80 154.00 739.20 Opposition to Defendant's MIL to exclude Officer Alberti's testimony. 12/04/15 VXM Communication with expert re: trial date and set-up NC 0.30 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge of follow-up call. 12/04/15 VXM Discussed and reviewed Judge Huvelle's pretrial T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 statement previously approved, and jury instructions, and entries of objections/responses to witness schedule for our pretrial statement. 12/07/15 BJM Drafting pretrial statement, review of documents, T 4.20 455.00 1,911.00 4.20 455.00 1911.00 drafting voir dire, jury instructions, etc. 12/07/15 JMS Incorporated track-changes from BJM, and T 2.30 154.00 354.20 2.30 154.00 354.20 added extra memorandum opinion citations in order to finalize Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine. 12/07/15 VXM Read and edited, and provided a revised version T 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 315.00 220.50 of opposition to motion in limine from District. 12/07/15 VXM Made second round of revisions to opposition to T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 motion in limine by adding case citation, changing language on limiting instructions (ad citation/research on same), and adding new depositon testimony excerpt. 12/07/15 VXM Meeting with J. Sarfati re: edits to Motion in T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 Limine. 12/07/15 VXM Proofread opposition to Motion in Limine and T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 noted additional list of minor corrections for J. Sarfati and arranged for filing. 12/08/15 BJM Drafting pretrial statement, review of documents, T 10.40 455.00 4,732.00 10.40 455.00 4732.00 drafting voir dire, jury instructions, etc., call and emails with opposing counsel re: status, drafting joint motion for extension for pretrial.

12/08/15 JMS Legal research of 6 cases and 2 statutes, and NC 1.40 154.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge drafted internal memorandum to BJM re whether Plaintiff can recover punitive damages from the District of Columbia. 12/08/15 JMS Review of Memorandum Opinion to identify NC 0.60 154.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge whether Court upheld retaliation and hostile work environment claims. 12/08/15 MEK Researched case law for whether a government T 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 municipality is immune from awards of punitive or liquidated damages under USERRA; Reviewed jury instructions concerning liquidated damages and willfullness under USERRA. 12/08/15 VXM Continued working on witness list, and T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 summaries of expected testimonies and sent to BJM for jury instructions purposes. 12/08/15 VXM Communications and discussions with opposing T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 counsel re: objections and D's portions for complete version for pretrial statement. 12/08/15 VXM Communication with BJM re: pretrial statement. T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 12/08/15 VXM Revised and completed deposition excerpts, T 4.50 315.00 1,417.50 4.50 315.00 1417.50 witness schedule and exhibit lists of initial draft of joint pretrial statement and sent to BJM to send to opposing counsel. 12/08/15 VXM Reviewed/Edited joint motion to extend T/R 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 deadline. 12/09/15 BJM Emails with opposing counsel, review of pretrial T 0.90 455.00 409.50 0.90 455.00 409.50 statement. 12/09/15 BJM Preparation for trial, meeting with VXM re: trial T 4.30 455.00 1,956.50 4.30 455.00 1956.50 preparation and pretrial statement. 12/09/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on exchange of exhibits T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 and correspondence with M. Mullen.

12/09/15 VXM Communication with M. Mullen on preserving T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 objections for all exhibits and timeline for filing. 12/09/15 VXM Communication with M. Mullen on defendant's T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 changes for filing final version. 12/09/15 VXM Drafted a joint motion to extend filing of pretrial T 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 statement, proofread and filed with court. 12/09/15 VXM Continued edits and arguments to D's portions of T 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 pretrial and researched certain jury instructions. 12/09/15 VXM Call with S. Vinick re: joint pretrial, and T/R 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 exchange of exhibits. 12/10/15 BJM Communication with opposing counsel re: T 2.90 455.00 1,319.50 2.90 455.00 1319.50 pretrial, review of deposition transcript for witness, trial prep, meeting with VXM re: trial. 12/10/15 VXM Communication re: Dr. Paige and notification for NC 0.30 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge his appearance at trial. 12/10/15 VXM Finished draft of pretrial by completing T 3.70 315.00 1,165.50 3.70 315.00 1165.50 Plaintiff's objections and analysis, and revisions and additions, and sent to M. Mullen for final approval and her objections to jury instructions. 12/11/15 BJM Drafting pretrial, including objections to T 5.70 455.00 2,593.50 5.70 455.00 2593.50 defendant's today produced jury instructions, and research on the same. 12/11/15 VXM Communication with M. Mullen re: corrected T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 documents, tracked changes and voir dire and jury instructions. 12/11/15 VXM Discussion with BJM and finalization of verdict T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 form. 12/11/15 VXM Revised and finalized our jury instructions and T 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 verdict forms and sent to M. Mullen for final apporoval and review (still awaiting D's jury instructions (proposed).

12/11/15 VXM Worked with BJM to respond to each of D's jury T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 instructions where objectionable, including basis for objection and proposed alternative. 12/11/15 VXM Reviewed, edited, and finalized, incorporating T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 and objecting to Defendant's jury instructions, and its authority and alternative instructions; proofread entire pretrial, finalized, formatted and filed with the court. 12/14/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on final filed joint pretrial T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 statement. 12/14/15 VXM Meeting and organization of exhibits and bates T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 numbers to pull and exchange exhibits with opposing counsel. 12/14/15 VXM Reviewed D's exhibits for objections and worked T 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 on pretrial memo. 12/15/15 VXM Discussion with BJM on getting admitted to NC 0.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DDC and prep for Tridico. 12/15/15 VXM Drafted motion for pro hac vice admission to NC 0.60 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DDC. 12/15/15 VXM Drafted declaration for pro hac vice after NC 0.70 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge researching local rules for requirements and compliance with 44.1. 12/15/15 VXM Revised and edited motion for admission pro hac NC 1.00 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge vice, revised declaration and drafted proposed order, proofread all docs and filed with the court. 12/15/15 VXM Discussions with BJM re: pro hac vice process NC 0.40 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge and edits to final motion and notarizing declaration. 12/15/15 VXM Reviewed orders for pre-trial conference and T 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 continued gathering complete exhibits for P's binder. 12/16/15 JMS Legal research of 7 cases to determine whether T 0.80 154.00 123.20 0.80 154.00 123.20 back-pack in the absence of reinstatement is a legal or equitable remedy in the context of Title 7 and USERRA.

12/16/15 JMS Legal Research to determine latest SCOTUS T 0.60 154.00 92.40 0.60 154.00 92.40 definiton of "but for" causation in the context of Title 7 claims and retaliation claims. 12/17/15 BJM Meeting re: trial preparation and pretrial T 1.80 455.00 819.00 1.80 455.00 819.00 preparation with VXM and SBV, dividing up tasks. 12/17/15 VXM Meeting with S. Vinick and BJM on Tridico T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 prep and trial notes. 12/18/15 BJM Research on ethics of contacting current officers NC 1.20 455.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge at MPD (i.e. fact witnesses that are government employees). 12/18/15 BJM Meeting to prepare for pretrial. T 0.40 455.00 182.00 0.40 455.00 182.00 12/18/15 BJM Drafting bench memo on right to jury trial under T 3.80 455.00 1,729.00 3.80 455.00 1729.00 USERRA and right to jury trial under Title VII when no reinstatement sought. 12/18/15 JMS Drafted legal memorandum for BJM review and T 4.10 154.00 631.40 4.10 154.00 631.40 future submission to judge re whether back-pay should be viewed as a legal or equitable remedy under USERRA and Title VII. 12/18/15 JMS Drafted legal memorandum for BJM review and T 2.20 154.00 338.80 2.20 154.00 338.80 future submission to judge re but for causation for a retaliation claim under TItle VII. 12/18/15 VXM Meeting with S. Areizaga re: docs needed for T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 pretrial conference and binder and authority. 12/18/15 VXM Continued preparing all exhibits for pretrial, and T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 trial motion, and memo for pretrial. 12/18/15 VXM Continued breakdown of facts per element and T 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 cross examination sheets for 2 of D's witnesses. 12/20/15 BJM Research and drafting memorandum on but for T 2.90 455.00 1,319.50 2.90 455.00 1319.50 causation and whether backpay is a jury determination.

12/21/15 BJM Preparation for pretrial, research on jury T 8.20 455.00 3,731.00 8.20 455.00 3731.00 determination issues, causation standard, and admissibility of EEOC findings, document review, meeting with SBV re: same and pretrial motions preparation. 12/21/15 SBV Mt BJM; Prepare for pre trial conference T 3.50 530.00 1,855.00 3.50 530.00 1855.00 12/21/15 VXM Discussed pretrial questions for conference with T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 BJM. 12/22/15 BJM Preparation, travel and participation at pretrial. T 4.50 455.00 2,047.50 3 455.00 1365.00 Reduced by 1.5 hours (travel time) 12/22/15 BJM Travel to pretrial Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 12/22/15 SBV Travel time to and from U.S.D.C. Pre trial T/R 6.00 530.00 3,180.00 4.5 530.00 2385.00 Reduced by 1.5 Conference; discussion with BJM; trial hours (travel time) preparation 12/22/15 SBV Travel to and from Pre-trial conference Travel 1.5 265.00 397.50 Travel time at 50% 12/28/15 VXM Call with BJM to discuss tasks in order, T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 subpoenas, and brief on causation. 12/28/15 VXM Communication with T. Avind at OAG regarding T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 deposition in the case. 12/29/15 JJC Correspondence to USDC District of Columbia. T 0.20 154.00 30.80 0.20 154.00 30.80 Re: Technology needs for trial on Jan 11th. 12/29/15 JJC Trial Prep for the Tridico case. Re: Trial Prep T 0.70 154.00 107.80 0.70 154.00 107.80 checklist for attorneys. 12/29/15 VXM Communication with BJM re: proffer requested T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 by the court and motion. 12/29/15 VXM Communication with J. Cherry, S. Vinick and T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 BJM on trial prep. 12/29/15 VXM Research on Causation for USERRA in all T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 circuits and reconcilation with Title VII. 12/29/15 VXM Drafted motion addressing causation for J. T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 Huvelle. 12/29/15 VXM Began review of Alberti deposition and affidavit T 1.10 315.00 346.50 1.10 315.00 346.50 for facts concerning each detail of her claim against Vice and MPD.

12/30/15 BJM Review of motion on causation and proffer, T 2.80 455.00 1,274.00 2.80 455.00 1274.00 research on appropriate jury instructions. 12/30/15 JJC Trial Preparation. Re: update checklist for items T 0.50 154.00 77.00 0.50 154.00 77.00 needed at trial. 12/30/15 VXM Completed review of docs and depo for Alberti T 2.20 315.00 693.00 2.20 315.00 693.00 and drafted proffer requested by court. 12/30/15 VXM Finalized exhibit for reconcilable jury instruction T 1.10 315.00 346.50 1.10 315.00 346.50 for USERRA and Title VII and prepared for filing, also proofread motion and proffer and filed all with DDC. 01/02/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 7.80 455.00 3,549.00 7.80 455.00 3549.00 case law, 01/02/16 SBV Review file and exhibits; trial preparation T 2.00 530.00 1,060.00 2.00 530.00 1060.00 01/02/16 VXM Began review of pleadings file and docket, FP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 emails and 01/03/16 SBV Review deposition transcripts of the client and T 3.00 530.00 1,590.00 3.00 530.00 1590.00 Officer Alberti 01/04/16 BJM Trial Preparation T 6.70 455.00 3,048.50 6.70 455.00 3048.50 01/04/16 SBV Discussion with BJM and VM; trial preparation; T 2.00 530.00 1,060.00 2.00 530.00 1060.00 file review 01/04/16 VXM Meeting with SBV, BJM and J. Cherry regarding T 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 315.00 252.00 trial prep. 01/04/16 VXM Communication with SBV and BJM on trial prep T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 matters. 01/04/16 VXM Reviewed joint proposed voir dire questions, T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 revised and sent to BJM. 01/04/16 VXM Communication with J. Cherry re: S. Guthrie. T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 01/04/16 VXM Follow-up email from M. Mullen on status of T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 joint voir dire. 01/04/16 VXM Reviewed M. Mullen edits and revised all joint T 1.50 315.00 472.50 1.50 315.00 472.50 voir dire and reviewed standard questions for court and finalized and proofread, sent to M. Mullen for final approval. 01/04/16 VXM Formatted final joint voir dire, and filed with T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 USDC.

01/05/16 BJM Research on USERRA, preparation of outline for T 6.80 455.00 3,094.00 6.80 455.00 3094.00 witnesses, meetings with VXM and JMC re: trial preparation, review of defendant's causation memorandum. 01/05/16 VXM Follow-up communication with opposing T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 counsel to confirm filing of joint voir dire. 01/05/16 VXM Discussion with BJM on opposition to USERRA T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 damages motion by District. 01/05/16 VXM Discussions and emails to SBV re: Grant T 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 admission and DCOHR affidavits. 01/05/16 VXM Researched online for information on Sergeant T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 Grant for impeachment and discussed appeal ruling on misconduct with BJM. 01/05/16 VXM Continued review of IAD docs and other T 1.70 315.00 535.50 1.70 315.00 535.50 impeachment material for witnesses and continued work on outline for opening statement. 01/06/16 BJM Research and drafting motion, meetings with T 7.90 455.00 3,594.50 7.90 455.00 3594.50 JMC and VXM re: trial issues, preparation of outline for witnesses, trial preparation, call with opposing counsel re: motions. 01/06/16 MEK Bluebooked citation to jury instructions. NC 0.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 01/06/16 MEK Reviewed filings regarding admissibility of T/R 2.70 315.00 850.50 315.00 850.50 Officer Alberti's testimony; Drafted response letter to District's reponse to plaintiff's informal correspondence with Court regarding testimony of Officer Alberti 01/06/16 VXM Meeting and discussion with W. Fuller on T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 impeachment material for D's witnesses. 01/06/16 VXM Began pulling docs from online research from T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 W. Fuller and including relevant docs in folders for each of D's witnesses. 01/06/16 VXM Meeting with J. Cherry concerning blow-ups T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 from D's Statement of undisputed facts.

01/06/16 VXM Read through and discussed D's response to P's T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 proffer on Alberti testimony, and our reply to same. 01/06/16 VXM Meeting with M. Kreiser to discuss proffer reply T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 and outline of our argument in the reply. 01/06/16 VXM Reviewed, edited, revised, formatted and filed T 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 315.00 220.50 our response to D's motion on damages. 01/06/16 VXM Drafted slides for all callouts to go with opening T 1.80 315.00 567.00 1.80 315.00 567.00 statement and sent to J. Cherry and SBV for edits. 01/06/16 VXM Reviewed main depos and IROG responses for a T 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 timeline for SBV and TimeMap and possibly the opening. 01/06/16 VXM Continued references to depo excerpts and T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 evidentiary docs for each the HWE claim under religion and military service. 01/06/16 WJF Reviewed defendant's discovery file for material T 5.50 154.00 847.00 5.50 154.00 847.00 for impeachment during trial 01/07/16 BJM Call with judge re: damages; review of witness T 8.00 455.00 3,640.00 8.00 455.00 3640.00 testimony, trial preparation. 01/07/16 MEK Conferenced with BJM and VXM regarding case T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 and assisting with last minute drafting; Discussed themes for opening statement to jury; Discussed defendant's response to informal letter to judge regarding Officer Alberti testimony. 01/07/16 VXM Discussed settlement options with BJM and ADR 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 SBV, and opposing counsel's response to offer with $25K counter. 01/07/16 VXM Meeting with J. Richardson, J. Cherry, BJM and NC 1.00 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge SBV to moot opening statement with powerpoint presentation and discuss criticism to better prepare for trial.

01/07/16 VXM Reviewed Paige report and darfted NC 0.40 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge correspondence to Judge Huvelle with copy of report and explanation of numbers in the report to include frontpay portion as backpay, and sent to Judge's clerk. 01/07/16 VXM Redrafted and revised other portions of reply to T 1.20 315.00 378.00 1.20 315.00 378.00 Defendant's opposition to proffer on Alberti testimony, and prepared for filing. 01/07/16 VXM Reviewed W. Fuller's findings for impeachment T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 material and forwarded to SBV for witness crosses. 01/07/16 VXM Finished highlighting expected testimony and T 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 drafted opening statement and began practicing opening statement. 01/07/16 VXM Meeting with J. Cherry re: timeline through T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 TimeMap and callouts for opening. 01/07/16 VXM Call with opposing counsel re: motion for T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 clarification and request to withdraw USERRA claim. 01/07/16 VXM Meeting with BJM to discuss D's motion for T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 clarification and rejection of USERRA withdrawl request. 01/07/16 VXM Discussion with BJM and J. Cherry re: pre-trial T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 communication with Officer Alberti re: her expected trial testimony. 01/07/16 VXM Call with Officer Alberti re: trial prep and T 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 315.00 220.50 testimony from deposition to used during direct. 01/07/16 VXM Researched provisions of USERRA for qualified T 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 315.00 220.50 individuals to be protected under statute 4311 and case law on issue; printed out relevant statute provision for call with judge.

01/07/16 VXM Call with Judge and opposing counsel re: T 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 damages motions, motion for clarification, jury instructions, and arguments to dismiss USERRA claims. 01/07/16 VXM Teleconference with BJM and M. Mullen T/R 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 discussing and refusing consent for motion for clarification and motion to dismiss USERRA claim. 01/07/16 WJF Reviewed defendant's discovery material for T/R 4.10 154.00 631.40 4.10 154.00 631.40 impeachment 01/08/16 BJM Trial preparation, drafting motions requested by T 8.40 455.00 3,822.00 8.40 455.00 3822.00 judge. 01/08/16 JMS Drafting of Trial Motion to Exclude evidence NC 3.80 154.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge pertaining to June 2013 DUI at upcoming trial. 01/08/16 MLS Review and revise BJM motion to strike defense NC 0.20 255.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge exhibits 01/08/16 SBV Trial preparation; review exhibits; prepare T 8.00 530.00 4,240.00 8.00 530.00 4240.00 examination questions; telephone call with client 01/08/16 VXM Went through all prior exhibit folders and T 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 315.00 220.50 corrected errors from pretrial conference in exhibits included, and revised exhibits based on latest call with Judge, and arranged for correct exhibits to be copied and discussed with A. Taylor and J Cherry 01/08/16 VXM Reviewed, revised, added language to response T 0.70 315.00 220.50 0.70 315.00 220.50 to motion for clarification and filed with DDC. 01/08/16 VXM Discussion with BJM and SBV re: D's lack of T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 exhibit copies provided to us, and edit of correspondence to opposing counsel on same issue. 01/08/16 VXM Researched case law on issue of client not being T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 qualified under USERRA, and sent to BJM for response to motion due Sunday.

01/08/16 VXM Reviewed D's last minute production of report T 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 from letter to. Fitzgerald on knife issue, and new payroll records offered for the first time and discussed with SBV and BJM. 01/08/16 VXM Listened to audio transcripts from IAD T 0.80 315.00 252.00 0.80 315.00 252.00 interviews for all of D's witnesses and discussed and sent to SBV for his crosses. 01/08/16 VXM Calls with client re: his deposition testimony and T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 clarification of facts for opening and slides for opening. 01/08/16 VXM Drafted summary memo of main points to T 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 include in USERRA opposition to BJM, including list of 8 points with authority. 01/08/16 VXM Because Defendant lost pretrial exhibits it was T 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 provided, I discussed final exhibit list and resent to Defendant via email. 01/08/16 VXM Revised opening statement based on yesterday's T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 feedback from J. Cherry, J. Richardson, SBV and BJM, and practiced opening for final moot on Sunday. 01/09/16 BJM Trial preparation, meeting with client, drafting T 7.80 455.00 3,549.00 7.80 455.00 3549.00 motions. 01/09/16 SBV Trial preparation; meeting with client; work on T 5.00 530.00 2,650.00 5.00 530.00 2650.00 examination questions 01/10/16 BJM Trial preparation, meeting with client, drafting T 8.90 455.00 4,049.50 8.90 455.00 4049.50 motions. 01/10/16 JJC Trial Prep for the trial. T 6.00 154.00 924.00 6.00 154.00 924.00 01/10/16 SBV Trial preparation; telephone call with client; T 8.00 530.00 4,240.00 8.00 530.00 4240.00 review documents 01/10/16 VXM Meeting to run through opening statement, T 8.00 315.00 2,520.00 8.00 315.00 2520.00 review witness testimony, and prepare client for witness stand, and discuss questions with client to fill in details for opening.

01/10/16 VXM Revised and memorized/mooted opening based T 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 on feedback from BJM and SBV; created new slides for opening to include new timeline, org chart, claims, etc. 01/10/16 VXM Reviewed, revised, edited, formatted, finalized T 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 and filed opposition to motion to dismiss USERRA claims. 01/11/16 BJM Trial, travel to and from, preparation for witness, T/R 13.20 455.00 6,006.00 11.7 455.00 5323.50 Reduced by 1.5 call with witness. hours (travel time) 01/11/16 BJM Travel to and from trial Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 01/11/16 JJC Tridico Trial at United States District Court of T 8.00 154.00 1,232.00 8.00 154.00 1232.00 DC. 01/11/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court; T 12.00 530.00 6,360.00 10.5 530.00 5565.00 Reduced by 1.5 trial; trial preparation; discussion with BJM and hours (travel time) VM 01/11/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court Travel 1.5 265.00 397.50 Travel time at 50% 01/11/16 VXM Travel to and from Greenbelt to District Court NC 3.00 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DC for trial (45 min. each way); opening Statement 01/11/16 VXM Trial (Jury Voir Dire and P's testimony). NC 7.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 01/12/16 BJM Trial, travel to and from. T 10.30 455.00 4,686.50 8.8 455.00 4004.00 Reduced by 1.5 hours (travel time) 01/12/16 BJM Travel to and from trial Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 01/12/16 JJC Tridico Trial at United States District Court of T 8.00 154.00 1,232.00 8.00 154.00 1232.00 DC. 01/12/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court; T 12.00 530.00 6,360.00 10.5 530.00 5565.00 Reduced by 1.5 trial; trial preparation; discussion with BJM and hours (travel time) VM 01/12/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court Travel 1.5 265.00 397.50 Travel time at 50% 01/12/16 VXM Travel to and from Greenbelt to District Court NC 1.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DC for trial (45 min. each way). 01/12/16 VXM Trial Day 2 (testimony of P, Ofc. Alberti, J. T 7.50 315.00 2,362.50 7.50 315.00 2362.50 Paige, Sgt Nickerson, Cap DeVille).

01/12/16 VXM Cued up all audio excerpts from IAD interview T 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 of letter to Fitzgerald, and revised cross examination notes and outline to include closed door, meeting, EEO training and N-word matter. 01/12/16 VXM Provided concerns and edits to verdict form for T 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 BJM and SBV consideration. 01/13/16 BJM Trial, travel to and from. T/R 10.50 455.00 4,777.50 9 455.00 4095.00 Reduced by 1.5 hours (travel time) 01/13/16 BJM Travel to and from trial Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 01/13/16 JJC Tridico Trial in United States District Court of T 8.00 154.00 1,232.00 8.00 154.00 1232.00 DC. 01/13/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court; T 10.00 530.00 5,300.00 8.5 530.00 4505.00 Reduced by 1.5 trial; trial preparation; discussion with BJM and hours (travel time) VM 01/13/16 SBV Travel to and from D.C. Federal Court Travel 1.5 265.00 397.50 Travel time at 50% 01/13/16 VXM Travel to and from Greenbelt to District Court NC 1.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DC for trial (45 min. each way). 01/13/16 VXM Trial Day 3 (testimony of letter Lt Fitzgerald, T/R 7.50 315.00 2,362.50 7.50 315.00 2362.50 Sgt Grant, motions, Closing Args). 01/14/16 BJM Trial, travel to and from. NC 0.20 455.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge 01/14/16 BJM Travel and trial. T 8.50 455.00 3,867.50 7 455.00 3185.00 Reduced by 1.5 hours (travel time) 01/14/16 BJM Travel to trial Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 01/14/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court; T 6.00 530.00 3,180.00 4.5 530.00 2385.00 Reduced by 1.5 trial; discussion with all counsel hours (travel time) 01/14/16 SBV Travel time to and from D.C. Federal Court Travel 1.5 265.00 397.50 Travel time at 50% 01/14/16 VXM Travel to and from Greenbelt to District Court NC 1.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DC for trial (45 min. each way). 01/14/16 VXM Trial Day 4 (closing arg, rebuttal, motions, and NC 6.00 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge jury instructions/deliberations). 01/15/16 BJM Travel and trial, post-verdict meeting with client. T 5.30 455.00 2,411.50 3.8 455.00 1729.00 Reduced by 1.5 hours (travel time)

01/15/16 BJM Travel to trial Travel 1.5 227.50 341.25 Travel time at 50% 01/15/16 SBV Discussion with BJM; review jury verdict T 0.50 530.00 265.00 0.50 530.00 265.00 01/15/16 VXM Travel to and from Greenbelt to District Court NC 1.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge DC for trial (45 min. each way). 01/15/16 VXM Trial Day 5 (jury deliberations and verdict and NC 2.20 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge final trial matters). 01/18/16 BJM Research for fee petition. FP 3.70 455.00 1,683.50 3.70 455.00 1683.50 01/19/16 BJM Research on case law re: case law for the fee FP 5.90 455.00 2,684.50 5.90 455.00 2684.50 petition, drafting fee petition. 01/19/16 VXM Discussion with M. Holland on SBV and BJM FP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 fee petition discussion and schedule. 01/19/16 VXM Discussion with N. Woodfield regarding trial FP 0.20 315.00 63.00 0.20 315.00 63.00 and fee petition. 01/19/16 VXM Meeting with SBV and BJM on post trial FP 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 motions and next steps. 01/20/16 BJM Research and drafting fee petition and affidavits FP 4.30 455.00 1,956.50 4.30 455.00 1956.50 for fee petition. 01/23/16 BJM Research on case law for fee petition. FP 1.20 455.00 546.00 1.20 455.00 546.00 01/27/16 VXM Reviewed, edited and finalized motion for FP 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 enlargement of 01/27/16 VXM Researched final judgment elements in case law NC 0.50 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge for trigger of petition deadline. 01/27/16 VXM Discussed and edited email to opposing counsel NC 0.30 315.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 No charge for consent 01/28/16 BJM Drafting fee petition, affidavits, review of time FP 7.10 455.00 3,230.50 7.10 455.00 3230.50 records and 01/29/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 7.20 455.00 3,276.00 7.20 455.00 3276.00 case law, 02/02/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 6.70 455.00 3,048.50 6.70 455.00 3048.50 case law, 02/04/16 BJM Drafting fees petition and affidavits. FP 4.90 455.00 2,229.50 4.90 455.00 2229.50 02/05/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 4.60 455.00 2,093.00 4.60 455.00 2093.00 case law, 02/05/16 VXM Continued drafting factual and procedural FP 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 background 02/08/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 5.60 455.00 2,548.00 5.60 455.00 2548.00 case law,

02/09/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 6.90 455.00 3,139.50 6.90 455.00 3139.50 case law, 02/09/16 VXM Continued working on factual background and FP 2.50 315.00 787.50 2.50 315.00 787.50 case 02/12/16 BJM Finalizing fee peition, meeting with AG re: FP 3.20 455.00 1,456.00 3.20 455.00 1456.00 time, call with LHT re: affidavit. 02/12/16 VXM Created separate files for memo, drafted order, FP 0.60 315.00 189.00 0.60 315.00 189.00 created PDFs of exhibits and filed all with DOC. 02/12/16 VXM Discussed final exhibits with BJM and labeling FP 0.50 315.00 157.50 0.50 315.00 157.50 issue, discussed declaration with L. Thatcher, and incorporated final version per BJ M. 02/12/16 VXM Completed final proofread and edits of fee FP 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 petition, gathered, incorporated and finalized exhibits, and prepared for filing. 02/12/16 VXM Made changes to argument subsections on FP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 novelty of issues and reduction of fees, and incorporated new additions into args sections. 02/22/16 VXM Reviewed rules for response of motion deadl ine, FP 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 discussed district's request for extension and after correct calendaring, drafting comm unication to district consenting to reauest 03/02/16 BJM Drafting petition for fees, research on applicable FP 7.60 455.00 3,458.00 7.60 455.00 3458.00 case law, 03/07/16 VXM Review of latest request from Districr re: fee FP 0.30 315.00 94.50 0.30 315.00 94.50 petition in voice and discussion with JPH and BJM on same. 03/11/16 VXM Reviewed exhibits filing in fee petition and FP 0.40 315.00 126.00 0.40 315.00 126.00 researched additional info requested by District, discussed with BJ m and drafted reesponse to District re: fee info and request for extension. 03/22/16 VXM Downloaded opposition to fees, circulated FP 1.00 315.00 315.00 1.00 315.00 315.00 03/23/16 BJM Research on case law for reply to fee petition, FP 2.30 455.00 1,046.50 2.30 455.00 1046.50 drafting outline for fee petition.

03/24/16 BJM Research on case law for reply to fee petition, FP 3.30 455.00 1,501.50 3.30 455.00 1501.50 including case law cited by Defendant, drafting outline for reply to fee petition 03/25/16 BJM Reply to fee petition &m research on case law and FP 3.20 455.00 1,456.00 3.20 455.00 1456.00 drafting reply. 03/28/16 BJM Call with client re: factual information, review FP 3.50 455.00 1,592.50 3.50 455.00 1592.50 of billing receipts for reply, drafting reply for fee petition, research on case law for reply 03/30/16 BJM Finalization of research on current value of FP 1.30 455.00 591.50 1.30 455.00 591.50 attorney rates, drafting reply memorandum. 03/31/16 VXM Began draft of all arguments in reply brief, and FP 3.00 315.00 945.00 3.00 315.00 945.00 research supporting argument subsection on reas. of fees and costs and laffey rates. 03/31/16 VXM Reviewed all exhibits and number proferred by FP 2.00 315.00 630.00 2.00 315.00 630.00 Defendant's for reduction, and completed calculations to verify and argue against D's numbers 04/02/16 VXM Continued drafting Reply Memorandum in FP 7.00 315.00 2,205.00 7.00 315.00 2205.00 support of fees argument subsections. 04/04/16 BJM Review of final reply and edits made. FP 0.70 455.00 318.50 0.70 455.00 318.50 04/04/16 VXM Completed final draft of reply memorandum, FP 5.40 315.00 1,701.00 5.40 315.00 1701.00 gathered and prepared exhibits, revised and edited reply based on discussion with BJM, proofread final brief and filed with Court. $294,255.80 Total -11,639.50 (Pl.'s additional reductions for duplicative time) -28,261.63 (Reduction of 10% for Limited Success) ______________________________ $254,354.67 Total fees awarded

Costs Requested and Awarded Date Prof. Description Category Units Req. Rate Req. Cost Req. Units Rate Cost Awarded Awarded Awarded 12/4/12 BJM Photocopying 11/16-11/30 Copies 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 9/30/14 BJM Photocopying/Printing Copies 316.00 0.15 47.40 316.00 0.15 47.40 9/30/14 BJM Color copies — Copitrak 8/15/14 — 8/31/14 Copies 5.00 0.75 3.75 0.25 11/11/14 BJM Photocopying/Printing — Copitrak Report 10/1-10/15/2014 Copies 336.00 0.15 50.40 336.00 0.15 50.40 11/11/14 BJM Color copies — Copitrak Report 10/1-10/15/2014 Copies 20.00 0.75 15.00 0.25 11/17/14 BJM Photocopying/Printing — Copitrak Report 10/15-10/31/15 Copies 53.00 0.15 7.95 53.00 0.15 7.95 6/19/15 BJM Photocopying/Printing — COPITRAK REPORT Copies 146.00 0.15 21.90 146.00 0.15 21.90 6/1-6/15 7/14/15 Photocopying/Printing — Copitrak Report 6/16-6/31 Copies 230.00 0.15 34.50 230.00 0.15 34.50 12/21/15 Photocopying/Printing Copies 39.00 0.15 5.85 39.00 0.15 5.85 1/7/16 Photocopying/Printing Copies 42.00 0.15 6.3 42.00 0.15 6.3 1/7/16 Photocopying/Printing Copies 33.00 0.15 4.95 33.00 0.15 4.95 1/7/16 Photocopying/Printing Copies 78.00 0.15 11.7 78.00 0.15 11.7 1/11/16 Photocopying/Printing Copies 78.00 0.15 11.7 78.00 0.15 11.7 1/13/16 Photocopying/Printing Copies 16.00 0.15 2.4 16.00 0.15 2.4 1/19/16 Photocopying/Printing Copies 6.00 0.15 0.9 6.00 0.15 0.9 10/31/12 Clerk, United State District Court — District of Court Costs 1.00 350.00 350.00 1.00 350.00 350.00 Maryland, Filing Fee 10/28/14 JGL Capital Reporting Company — Transcript of Deposition/Court 1.00 647.25 647.25 1.00 647.25 647.25 client Reoorters 11/14/14 JGL Planet Depos Transcript fee of OFC. Tabitha Deposition/Court 1.00 532.50 532.50 1.00 532.50 532.50 Alberti Reoorters

4/1/15 JGL Jerome Paige Professional Services — NC 1.00 2,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Economic Loss Reports 2/9/16 JGL Jerome Paige Professional Services — NC 1.00 3,839.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Economic Loss Reports 1/2/13 JGL LexisNexis LEXIS-NEXIS Online Charges Online Research 1.00 10.57 10.57 1.00 10.57 10.57 11/4/13 JGL Pacer Service Center Online Research 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.30 0.30 8/1/14 JGL Pacer Service Center COURT COMPUTER Online Research 1.00 2.10 2.10 1.00 2.10 2.10 ACCESS RESEARCH 10/1/14 BJM Westlaw Research — August 2014 Online Research 1.00 6.01 6.01 1.00 6.01 6.01 2/24/14 JGL LexisNexis LEXIS-NEXIS Online Charges Online Research 1.00 6.06 6.06 1.00 6.06 6.06 2/28/14 JGL Pacer Service Center Online Research 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2/18/15 JGL Pacer Service Center — Pacer Usage 10/01/2014 Online Research 1.00 5.10 5.10 1.00 5.10 5.10 12/31/2014 2/24/15 BJM Westlaw Research — November 2014 Online Research 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4/3/15 BJM Westlaw Research — March 2015 Online Research 1.00 10.42 10.42 1.00 10.42 10.42 6/4/15 BJM Westlaw Research — May 2015 Report Online Research 1.00 18.13 18.13 1.00 18.13 18.13 8/6/15 Westlaw Research — June 2015 Online Research 1.00 137.56 137.56 1.00 137.56 137.56 11/11/15 PACER Service 2015 3rd Quarter Online Research 1.00 10.1 10.1 1.00 10.1 10.1 2/3/16 Westlaw Research — December 2015 Online Research 1.00 278.07 278.07 1.00 278.07 278.07 10/4/13 BJM Postage — 9124113 Postage 1.00 14.74 14.74 1.00 14.74 14.74 6/26/13 BJM Postage — 6/21/13 Postage 1.00 1.72 1.72 1.00 1.72 1.72 7/1/14 BJM Postage — 6/20 Postage 1.00 1.82 1.82 1.00 1.82 1.82 7/1/14 BJM Postage — 6117 Postage 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.40 2/21/14 BJM Postage — 217114 Postage 1.00 1.61 1.61 1.00 1.61 1.61 9/26/14 BJM Postage Postage 1.00 1.82 1.82 1.00 1.82 1.82

3/5/15 BJM Postage — 02106115 Postage 1.00 5.95 5.95 1.00 5.95 5.95 12/10/15 Postage — 1217/2015 Postage 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.20 10/7/14 JGL L.H. Levy Investigations, Inc. Service of Process Service 1.00 100.00 100.00 1.00 100.00 100.00 Process Officer Tabitha Alberti 9/15/15 Vijay Mani — Parking 02/24/2015 USDC for Travel/Meals/Parking 1.00 22.00 22.00 1.00 22.00 22.00 DC — 333 Constitution Ave NW #4400 Washington DC 20001 1/20/16 Jamerra Cherry — Parking January 8, 12 & 16 Travel/Meals/Parking 1.00 75.00 75.00 1.00 25 25 601 Pennsvlvania Avenue 2/4/16 Steven B. Vinick — Parking Jan. 11-14 601 Travel/Meals/Parking 1.00 108.00 108.00 1.00 108.00 108.00 Pennsylvania Avenue 1/12/16 Steven B. Vinick — Parking 12/22/2015 U Street Travel/Meals/Parking 1.00 15.00 15.00 1.00 15.00 15.00 1/12/16 Steven B. Vinick — Parking 12/22/2015 Travel/Meals/Parking 1.00 22.00 22.00 0.00 0 0 9/29/14 JGL Tabitha Alberti — Witness Mileage for Depo Witness Fee 1.00 20.00 20.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 Attendance 3/28/16 Westlaw Research — February 2016 Online Research 1.00 179.08 179.08 1.00 179.08 179.08 Total Costs Awarded 2,721.51