Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAGUEUX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on objections to the attached Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen, regarding his assessment of attorneys’ fees properly due Plaintiffs as prevailing parties in the instant litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Following the appeal of this matter to the First Circuit, Plaintiffs, Rhode Island Medical Society, Pablo Rodriguez, Benjamin S. Vogel, and Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, filed two motions for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the course of this litigation in the District Court and on appeal. Plaintiffs’ motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Love-green for preliminary review, findings, and a recommended disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 32(c). The magistrate judge held a hearing on these motions July 10, 2003, and after hearing argument and reviewing the written materials submitted, he made the following recommendations regarding Plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and costs: (1) For legal work performed in the District Court, the ACLU-RFP attorneys (Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp) were entitled to a total of $234,416.68 in fees and costs, and, as local counsel, Attorney Labinger was entitled to a total of $48,707.94. (2) For legal work performed in the First Circuit, the ACLU-RFP attorneys were entitled to a total of $36,000.73 in fees and costs. The magistrate judge recommended no compensation be awarded to Attorney Labinger for legal work performed at the appellate level. Thus, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiffs be awarded a grand total of $319,125.35 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Despite this large recommended award, Plaintiffs object to the magistrate judge’s calculation of attorneys’ fees on two grounds. First, Plaintiffs note that, in the course of evaluating the number of hours properly compensable under 42 U.S.C. 1988, the magistrate judge eliminated 319.15 of the hours for which Plaintiffs’ attorneys sought compensation for their work in this Court, and 162.51 of the hours for which Plaintiffs’ attorneys sought compensation in the First Circuit. Plaintiffs object to the elimination of 183.07 hours in this Court and 85.83 hours eliminated for appellate work, arguing that these reductions were unjustified, and should be reinstated. Second, Plaintiffs’ lead counsel from the ACLU-RFP based in New York City object to the magistrate judge’s imposition of Rhode Island rates for their services. These out-of-state lawyers argue that New York rates are appropriate for their legal work on this case, and ask the Court to revise the award on this basis. Review of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Local Rule 32(c)(2). After reviewing the record, hearing argument on Plaintiffs’ objections and considering the memoranda submitted by the parties, this Court adopts the disposition recommended by the magistrate judge, subject to one revision. As described further below, the Court reinstates 6.5 of the hours eliminated by the magistrate judge for time spent preparing four First Circuit status reports by Attorney Borgmann, because the claimed time, as now explained by Plaintiffs in their objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, was both necessary and reasonable. However, this writer concludes that all of the magistrate judge’s other recommended reductions and eliminations were warranted, and specifically adopts his determinations in this regard. In addition, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that local Rhode Island rates are appropriate for the ACLU-RFP attorneys involved in this case, and, as further described herein, refuses to impose New York City rates for the services rendered by Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp in this litigation. I. Calculating Attorneys’ Fees In calculating the correct amount of attorneys’ fees, district courts in this Circuit are required to employ the “lodestar” approach. Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., LLC, 140 F.Supp.2d 111, 123 (D.Mass.2001); see also Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir.2001); Maceira v. Pagan, 698 F.2d 38, 39 (1st Cir.1983). Under this method, the district court must calculate the “lodestar,” or the “reasonable hourly rate for each attorney and for the type of work he or she performed” and, after performing any necessary adjustments, multiply the adopted rate times the number of hours each attorney “reasonably worked” on the case, with the understanding that in some cases the number of hours reasonably spent on a case may be less than the number of hours actually worked. Maceira, 698 F.2d at 39 (noting that, under the lodestar approach, “[t]he final figure combines reasonably objective market factors with the court’s own perception of the litigation”). The First Circuit has described the calculation as follows: Gay Officers, 247 F.3d at 295 (citing Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 937 (1st Cir.1992)). In implementing this lodestar approach, the judge calculates the time counsel spent on the case, subtracts duplicative, unproductive, or excessive hours, and then applies prevailing rates in the community (taking into account the qualifications, experience, and specialized competence of the attorneys involved). Thus, when awarding attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, this Court must first determine the number of hours reasonably spent by each attorney in this litigation, eliminating any hours that are, in the Court’s judgment, “duplicative, unproductive, or excessive,” and then must multiply that figure times the reasonable hourly rate the court deems appropriate for such legal work. Id. Reasonable hourly rates have been defined as “prevailing rates in the community for comparably qualified attorneys.” Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 937; Andrade v. Jamestown Housing Authority, 82 F.3d 1179, 1190 (1st Cir.1996). For purposes of attorneys’ fees, the relevant community is usually where the court is located. Gay Officers, 247 F.3d at 296 (citing Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treas., 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir.2000)). As noted by the magistrate judge, the party requesting attorneys’ fees bears the burden of providing sufficient documentation to the court to establish the hours and rates sought. Where the provided documentation is inadequate, “the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 77 F.Supp.2d 258, 263 (D.R.I.1999) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)); see also Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land, 32 F.3d 632, 634 (1st Cir.1994). Utilizing the standard thus outlined, this writer now turns to the claimed fees at issue. II. Reasonable Hours Spent In calculating the number of compensable hours, it is the Court’s function to ascertain the amount of time actually spent on the case by the attorneys involved, “and then subtract from that figure hours which were duplicative, unproductive, excessive, or otherwise unnecessary.” Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 937. In other words, the Court must compensate only for those hours that it finds reasonable, taking into account the nature of the litigation and the tasks performed by the attorneys. Plaintiffs object to the magistrate judge’s recommended hour reductions in both the District Court and the. Court of Appeals. As to the hours eliminated in the District Court, Plaintiffs lump their objections into two basic assertions as to where they allege the magistrate judge erred: (1) “Failure to recognize that preliminary injunction hearings (or depositions) were scheduled,” and (2) “Failure to recognize the scope of reply necessary in second round preliminary injunction papers.” Regarding hours the magistrate judge eliminated in the First Circuit, Plaintiffs base their objection on the magistrate judge’s “[mjisunderstanding of the issue on appeal.” These specific objections will be discussed in turn. A. Eliminated Hours Prior to Scheduled Proceedings Plaintiffs specifically object to three instances where the magistrate judge eliminated hours Attorneys Borgmann and Camp spent drafting practice questions and engaging in witness preparation prior to scheduled preliminary injunction hearings and/or depositions, which were later cancelled. The total time objected to on this basis for work done in the District Court is 45 hours. Plaintiffs argue that the magistrate judge’s eliminations were improper because he failed to comprehend that hearings and depositions were scheduled at the time the work was performed. Defendants argue that the described work was insufficiently described in Plaintiffs’ affidavits and contemporaneous records to merit an award. In addition, Defendants argue that Attorney Borgmann’s hours spent drafting practice hearing questions were unnecessary, as these questions had already been drafted for proceedings in previous litigation. After reviewing the record, this writer concludes that these hours were properly eliminated by the magistrate judge because of Plaintiffs’ incomplete billing records. As noted above, Plaintiffs, as those seeking attorneys fees, bear the burden of providing sufficient documentation to establish the fee award sought. O’Rourke, 77 F.Supp.2d at 263. To secure an award from the district court, documentation of attorneys’ fees must be contemporaneous with the work performed. Grendel’s Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st Cir.1984). In addition, as the magistrate judge observed, in order for the district court to properly evaluate attorneys’ fees, the documentation provided must be full and specific, offering a description of both the time spent and the subject matter of the task performed. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 32 F.3d at 634. In the absence of such detailed information, it becomes impossible for the court to “gage whether the task performed was warranted” or “determine if the time factor allocated was appropriate or excessive.” Id. Thus, where documentation is inadequate to support the claimed award, it must be eliminated. O’Rourke, 77 F.Supp.2d at 263. Here, Plaintiffs complain that the hours eliminated by the magistrate judge were properly spent preparing witnesses for “hearings (or depositions)” that were scheduled at the time. The magistrate judge disallowed this time because he was unable to determine what witnesses were being prepared and what proceedings were pending. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ contemporaneous records and supporting affidavits, this writer continues to wonder exactly what witnesses were being prepared in some instances, and, where that is supplied, what proceedings were involved. For example, Plaintiffs’ object to hours eliminated for time they claim that Attorney Borgmann spent “drafting direct and practice cross-examination questions for witnesses to testify at the preliminary injunction-hearing scheduled for early August 1997.” See Plaintiffs’ Objection, at 6. However, the contemporaneous records provided describe this time — without context — as “Located and reviewed Mich, questions and cross-examinations for possible questions; began to draft questions,” “Drafted witness questions,” “Drafted and revised witness questions,” and “Worked on witness questions.” No references exist in Plaintiffs’ contemporaneous records or the affidavits submitted to identify what witnesses were at issue, the subject matter of the questions prepared, or the proceeding prepared for. Similarly, Plaintiffs object to hours eliminated that Attorney Camp spent preparing Dr. Stubblefield for his testimony in July 1997. In their objection to the magistrate judge’s report, Plaintiffs argue that these hours were spent preparing Dr. Stubblefield for a hearing scheduled in August 1997. However, Attorney Camp’s contemporaneous records attribute these hours to time spent preparing for Dr. Stubblefield’s deposition, which did not occur until January 1999. Although Plaintiffs seem to suggest that some depositions were scheduled, and then cancelled, they have not described for the Court which depositions these were. Under these circumstances, it is unclear what proceeding Plaintiffs were preparing for, and thus, whether the time spent was warranted. This writer is satisfied that these hours were appropriately eliminated by the magistrate judge. B. Reduced Hours on Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Plaintiffs also object to 73.82 of the hours eliminated by the magistrate judge, arguing that these hours were inappropriately removed due to the magistrate judge’s failure to comprehend “the scope of reply necessary” in their reply to Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed after the Rhode Island law in question was amended). The magistrate judge’s reductions in this regard reflect his opinion that much of the time Plaintiffs’ attorneys spent on their second round reply brief was excessive and unreasonable, especially in light of the considerable time these attorneys reported for their earlier submissions. Plaintiffs attempt to counter the reductions by pointing out that Defendants filed a sixty page objection to Plaintiffs’ motion, and attached to this, hundreds of pages of affidavits and exhibits. Faced with such a lengthy objection, Plaintiffs argue that they considered themselves “obligated to respond in kind” when generating their reply brief. It is Plaintiffs’ contention that the magistrate judge failed to recognize the volume and scope of their reply brief, and they ask this Court to restore the eliminated hours to the award. In objecting to the magistrate judge’s reductions, Plaintiffs ask the Court to compensate them for all the hours spent on their voluminous reply submissions. However, as Judge Lovegreen properly noted, the lodestar amount for attorneys’ fees hinges not on the number of hours actually worked, but rather on “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation[.]” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (emphasis added). Determining what hours are reasonable requires an independent evaluation by the court. As the First Circuit has noted: In fashioning fee awards, the attorneys’ contemporaneous billing records constitute the usual starting point, but the court’s discretion is by no means shackled by those records. For example, it is the court’s prerogative (indeed, its duty) to winnow out excessive hours, time spent tilting at windmills, and the like. Gay Officers, 247 F.3d at 295-96. Thus, in calculating the lodestar amount, it is appropriate for the court to eliminate those hours that it deems excessive or duplicative. In ■ doing so, this Court is entitled to exercise its discretion as to the amount of time reasonable to perform the task described. Sherwood Brands of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Smith Enterprises, Inc., 2002 WL 32157515 at *2 (D.R.I.2002) (“The District Court may calculate the lodestar amount based upon its own estimation of reasonable time necessary to perform tasks at issue ....”); see also Grendel’s Den, Inc., 749 F.2d at 953-54 (“[A] litigant is entitled to attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for an effective and completely competitive representation but not one of supererogation.”). Here, after reviewing Plaintiffs’ submissions, this writer concludes that the magistrate judge’s time reductions were appropriate. In each instance where Plaintiffs object, the magistrate judge reduced or eliminated hours to reflect his estimation of the time necessary to perform the task at issue. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that much of the attorneys’ time spent on reply submissions was excessive, especially in light of the effort previously expended in the original motion papers. Like the magistrate judge, this writer does not doubt that Plaintiffs’ attorneys accurately reported the number of hours actually spent performing these tasks. However, when awarding attorneys’ fees it is the district court’s duty to compensate only for those hours that it can, in its own judgment, say were reasonable under the circumstances. This writer concurs with the magistrate judge that the reported hours on the reply brief were excessive, and approves his recommended reductions/eliminations in this regard. C. Reduced Hours in the First Circuit Plaintiffs’ third specific objection relates to hours the magistrate judge eliminated for work performed when the case was in the First Circuit. As grounds for their objection, Plaintiffs suggest that the magistrate judge improperly eliminated these hours because he misunderstood the issue on appeal. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants attempted to argue the concept of severability on appeal while improperly couching it in terms of standing. While standing had been raised previously in the district court, Plaintiffs argue, Defendants’ severability argument had not been advanced below. Plaintiffs ask this Court to compensate them for the additional hours spent countering this novel appellate argument by reinstating those hours the magistrate judge eliminated for work performed in the First Circuit. After reviewing the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, along with the documents presented by the parties, this writer is satisfied that the magistrate judge did not misunderstand the issue Plaintiffs faced on appeal. In outlining the issues presented in this case on appeal, the magistrate judge merely quoted the First Circuit’s description. As Judge Lovegreen observed, “the issue before the First Circuit was standing or, as stated by the First Circuit, ‘because appellees do not perform any post-viability abortions, they lack standing to challenge the Act as applied to post-viability abortions.’ ” Report and Recommendation at 55 (citing Rhode Island Medical Society v. Whitehouse, 239 F.3d 104, 105 (1st Cir.2001)). As the magistrate judge also observed, the First Circuit noted that the issues Defendants raised on appeal were similar to those raised, briefed, and rejected in the district court. See id., see also Rhode Island Medical Society, 239 F.3d at 105 (noting that Defendant’s argument on appeal was “a variation of the standing argument that appellant made below — an argument that was rejected”). Thus, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the extremely large number of hours expended by Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp drafting, revising, editing, managing, and filing their merits brief were both excessive and duplicative under the circumstances. The Court, therefore, considers the reductions in this regard reasonable, and specifically adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendations regarding work performed in the First Circuit, subject to one revision. The one revision the Court makes to the magistrate judge’s recommended reductions concerns status reports that were completed by Attorney Borgmann every sixty days while a stay of appellate proceedings was in effect. Judge Lovegreen eliminated 6.5 hours spent preparing these status reports because he was unsure who they were performed for or why they were necessary. Although Plaintiffs did not sufficiently substantiate the basis for these hours in the documents submitted to the magistrate judge, they have submitted documentation to this Court in the interim demonstrating that the First Circuit required Plaintiffs to submit these reports every sixty days while the stay of proceedings was in effect. See First Circuit Order entered Nov. 22, 1999. Attorney Borg-mann’s records reflect a total of 6.5 hours spent compiling four separate status reports. Dividing the total hours worked by the number of reports produced, this amounts to 1.625 hours spent on each report. The Court finds this amount of time to be reasonable under the circumstances, and, as Plaintiffs have now substantiated the hours, this writer restores 6.5 of the hours originally eliminated by the magistrate judge from Attorney Borgmann’s work in the First Circuit. D. Other Objections Additionally, Plaintiffs object to other reductions in time made by the magistrate judge, arguing that his reductions do not reflect the amount of time actually necessary for Plaintiffs’ attorneys to perform the task described. After reviewing these reductions, this writer concurs with the magistrate judge that the reported hours were excessive under the circumstances. Again, compensable hours should reflect the amount of time that the Court, after an independent evaluation, deems reasonable to accomplish the required tasks. See Sherwood Brands, 2002 WL 32157515 at *2. The Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommended reductions in this regard as well. III. A Reasonable Hourly Rate The second prong of the lodestar analysis is determining a reasonable hourly rate for the services rendered. Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 937; Maceira, 698 F.2d at 39. As stated previously, reasonable hourly rates are the prevailing rates in the relevant community for attorneys with comparable qualifications and experience. Gay Officers, 247 F.3d at 295; Andrade, 82 F.3d at 1190. Typically, “reasonable hourly rates should be set by reference to rates in the court’s vicinage rather than in the lawyer’s region of origin.” Gay Officers, 247 F.3d at 296 (citing Adcoch-Ladd, 227 F.3d at 350); see also Williams v. Poulos, 1995 WL 281451 at *4 (1st Cir.1995). However, as the First Circuit has noted, out-of-town rates are appropriate “if the complexities of a particular case require the particular expertise of non-local counsel”, or “when the case is an undesirable one which capable attorneys within the forum community are not willing to prosecute or defend.” Williams, 1995 WL 281451 at *4 (citing Maceira, 698 F.2d at 40, and quoting 2 Mary Frances Derfner & Arthur D. Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, ¶ 16.03[8] (1994)) (emphasis in original). In ascertaining the rates to be awarded, the district court need not rely on information supplied by the parties, and remains free to utilize its own knowledge of attorneys’ fees in the relevant area. Andrade, 82 F.3d at 1190; Phetosomphone v. Allison Reed Group, Inc., 984 F.2d 4, 8 (1st Cir.1993). Plaintiffs object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that Rhode Island rates be awarded rather • than the New York City rates sought by Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Essentially, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to out-of-town rates for their services because 1) Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp are experts in the field of reproductive rights, and 2) Plaintiffs were justified in retaining these attorneys as out-of-town experts because no local Rhode Island attorneys possessed comparable knowledge or expertise in mounting facial challenges to statutes banning partial birth abortions. Plaintiffs argue that the complexities of this case, their expertise, and the unavailability of qualified local counsel meet the standards for out-of-town rates established by the First Circuit in Maceira, 698 F.2d at 40, and ask the Court to revise the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition on this ground. For the reasons described below, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument and adopts the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Rhode Island rates are appropriate. As the First Circuit observed in Ma-ceira, the reasonableness of awarding out-of-town rates “turns on the reasonableness of hiring an out-of-town specialist.” Id. at 40. As the Court of Appeals stated: Where it is unreasonable to select a higher priced outside attorney — as, for example, in an ordinary case requiring no specialized abilities not amply reflected among local lawyers— the local rate is the appropriate yardstick. But, if the client needs to go to a different city to find [a] specialist, he will expect to pay the rate prevailing in that city. In such a case, there is no basis for concluding that the specialist’s ordinary rate is unreasonably high. If one wishes to be literal, the ‘prevailing’ rate ‘in the community’ for work performed by an outside specialist (where that outside specialist is reasonable) is most likely to be that outside specialist’s ordinary rate[.] Id. at 40. Thus, before a district court can award out-of-town rates, it must conclude two things: first, that retention of an outside specialist was reasonable under the circumstances, as members of the local bar were unable or unwilling to litigate the matter, and second, that the retained attorney is an expert, or specialist in the required area of law, possessing specialized skills or knowledge that the local bar cannot muster. In determining whether hiring an outside specialist was reasonable, the Court must consider whether the complexities of the case take it beyond the ken of local attorneys, making the skills of an out-of-town specialist necessary. Williams, 1995 WL 281451 at *4 (citing Maceira, 698 F.2d at 40); see also Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 768 (7th Cir.1982) (“The complexity and specialized nature of a case may mean that no attorney, with the required skills, is available locally”). Here, the Plaintiffs brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Rhode Island’s statutory ban on partial birth abortions. Plaintiffs argue that no attorneys in the local Rhode Island bar were capable of leading this litigation, and, as a result, they were forced to retain outside experts from the ACLU-RFP in New York City. The main piece of evidence Plaintiffs offer in support of their argument is a declaration from their local counsel, Attorney Labinger, which states' her belief that she “did not possess sufficient expertise as to the necessary medical knowledge and its interplay with legal precedent to serve as lead counsel in this constitutional challenge and that there was no attorney in Rhode Island whp. did.” See Declaration of Attorney Labinger at 4. Although this statement reflects Attorney Labinger’s beliefs, it does not support Plaintiffs’ contention that no members of the Rhode Island bar were qualified to serve as lead counsel in this case, or that such qualified members were contacted and refused to participate in the litigation. Indeed, this Court has spent many a year as a member of the bench and the bar in this state, and can state with confidence that at least a half-dozen law firms in Providence possessed the requisite legal experience and the necessary knowledge to take on the constitutional issues presented in this case. Although this writer is not aware of a law firm in Providence specifically concentrating its entire practice in the area of reproductive rights, the Court does not consider such an exclusive specialty necessary to litigate the facial challenge mounted in this case. An experienced attorney in a health-related area of law, such as medical malpractice, would be more than able to meet with doctors and other medical personnel and develop the knowledge base necessary to serve as lead counsel in this litigation. This form of preparation is exactly the same as that actually conducted by Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp in this case. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that many Rhode Island lawyers were competent to handle this case, but, for whatever reason, they were never contacted by Plaintiffs. Instead, Plaintiffs were content, to use out-of-town counsel after one member of the local bar opined that she considered herself under-qualified to serve as lead counsel, and was unaware of other more qualified Rhode Island attorneys. Such a showing is inadequate to establish that outside counsel was required. See Williams, 1995 WL 281451 at *4; Maceira, 698 F.2d at 40. Based on the materials submitted, the magistrate judge also concluded that Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp, although specialists in the field of reproductive rights, did not possess sufficient experience in mounting a challenge to partial birth abortion bans to make them more expert in this type of litigation than local attorneys in the Rhode Island community. The magistrate judge based his conclusion in part on Plaintiffs’ description of this case as a matter of first impression and also in part on the extensive amount of investigative work, research, and hours of preparation Plaintiffs’ attorneys performed to successfully challenge Rhode Island’s partial birth abortion statute in court. As the magistrate judge noted, the number of hours Plaintiffs’ attorneys spent building their knowledge base, preparing themselves and their witnesses, researching the law, and drafting their briefs was excessive for attorneys claiming to be experts in the subject area. The Court recognizes that this was a case of first impression, and that, as such, it required more research and preparation than would an established issue of law. However, this writer agrees with the magistrate judge that Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp, while possessing specialized knowledge in the general area of reproductive rights, did not possess enough specialized knowledge in mounting facial challenges to statutory partial birth abortion bans to warrant the imposition of out-of-town rates for their services. As the magistrate judge observed, these attorneys were no more specialists in challenging partial birth abortion bans than were numerous other attorneys in the state, including Plaintiffs’ local counsel, Attorney Labinger. As a result, the Court refuses to award Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp out-of-town rates for their services in this case. Instead, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommended Rhode Island rates for each attorney, as stated in the attached Report and Recommendation. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted, subject to one revision regarding attorneys fees for time spent generating status reports in the First Circuit. This revision increases Attorney Borgmann’s compensa-ble hours for legal work on appeal to 116.5. To summarize, the following attorneys’ fees and costs are adopted and imposed by the Court: District Court Attorneys’ Fees Awarded: Attorney Weiss: 389.08 hours @ $225.00 hourly = $87,543.00 Attorney Borgmann: 509.55 hours @ $190.00 hourly = $96,814.50 Attorney Camp: 168 hours @ $175.00 hourly = $29,400.00 Attorney Labinger: 212.4 hours @ $225.00 hourly = $47,790.00 Total District Court Fees Awarded: $261,547.50 Costs Awarded: ACLU-RFP Attorneys: $20,659.18 Attorney Labinger: $917.94 Total District Court Costs Awarded: $21,577.12 TOTAL: $283,121.62 First Circuit Court of Appeals Attorneys’ Fees Awarded: Attorney Weiss: 25.83 hours @ $225.00 hourly = $5,811.75 Attorney Borgmann: 116.5 hours @ $190.00 hourly = $22,135.00 Attorney Camp: 45.25 hours @ $175.00 hourly = $7,918.75 Attorney Labinger: no compensation Total First Circuit Fees Awarded: $35,865.50 Costs Awarded: ACLU-RFP Attorneys: $1,640.23 Attorney Labinger: no compensation Total First Circuit Costs Awarded: $1,640.23 TOTAL: $37,505.73 GRAND TOTAL AWARDED PLAINTIFFS: $320,630.35 The total amount due Plaintiffs for fees and costs in this litigation, therefore, is increased to $320,360.35. Plaintiffs’ other objections are overruled as stated herein. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Plaintiffs in that total amount, forthwith. It is so ordered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBERT W. LOVEGREEN, United States Magistrate Judge. In this matter, the plaintiffs, alleging they are prevailing parties in this litigation, seek counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the legal work performed in the district court in the amount of $471,695.50 and costs in the amount of $21,577.12 for a total of $493,272.62. Additionally, the plaintiffs, again alleging that they were the prevailing parties in the appeal in the First Circuit, seek counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the legal work performed in the First Circuit in the amount of $99,756.50 and costs in the amount of $1,724.90 for a total of $101,481.40. Both motions for counsel fees and costs have been referred to a magistrate judge for preliminary review, findings, and recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 32(c). A hearing on both motions was held on July 10, 2003. Based upon the court’s review of the legal memoranda, the oral arguments, and independent research, I recommend that attorneys’ fees and costs be awarded as follows: Legal Work Performed Before the District Court ACLU-RFP — $213,757.50 (attorneys’ fees) and $20,659.18 (costs) for a total of $234,416.68 Attorney Labinger — $47,790.00 (attorneys’ fees) and $917.94 (costs) for a total of $48,707.94. Legal Work Performed Before the Circuit Court ACLU-RFP — $34,360.50 (attorneys’ fees) and $1,640.23 (costs) for a total of $36,000.73. Attorney Labinger — no award. Background This litigation commenced with the plaintiffs launching a constitutional attack on a state statute attempting to ban partial birth abortions, R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.12. At the district court level, the plaintiffs, two obstetricians and two medical related groups, were represented by Lynette J. Labinger (“Attorney Labinger”) as local counsel and by Catherine Weiss (“Attorney Weiss”), Caitlin Borgmann (“Attorney Borgmann”), and Talcott Camp (“Attorney Camp”) who are associated with the Reproductive Freedom Project, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. The defendants, the then Attorney General and Governor of the State of Rhode Island, were represented by Rebecca Tedford Partington (“Attorney Partington”) for the Attorney General and Claire J.Y. Richards (“Attorney Richards”) for the Governor. At the First Circuit level, the plaintiffs were again represented by the same counsel and an additional attorney Jessie Hill (“Attorney Hill”). While both defendants initiated the appeal, the Attorney General later withdrew his appeal based upon a then recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, the Governor continued with the appeal and was represented by his Executive Counsel, Joseph S. Larisa, Jr. (“Attorney Larisa”), his Deputy Executive Counsel, Claire Richards, and Thomas M. Dickinson (“Attorney Dickinson”) of the law firm of Pine & Cantor. In the district court, in July 1997, almost immediately following the passage of the state statute, the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) which enjoined the defendants from enforcing the state statute. At some point in 1998, the Rhode Island General Assembly amended the state statute and the litigation was stayed pending that amendment process. However, the TRO remained in effect and, subsequent to the amendment, the TRO was applied to the amended state statute and remained in effect throughout the litigation until the district court’s decision on August 30, 1999 when the district court issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the state statute as amended. The supposed purpose of the state statute was to ban a single procedure known as the D & X procedure, but the state statute’s definition of that procedure did not conform to the medical definition thereof. The plaintiffs, quite correctly as the results of this litigation demonstrate, were concerned that the state statute covered more than just the D & X procedure and, in fact, threatened the performance of constitutionally protected abortions. Hence this litigation commenced and the plaintiffs raised numerous constitutional objections including, inter alia, the definition of partial birth abortion contained in the state statute is too vague and infringes on protected procedures, the state statute fails to provide for an exception for the mother’s health, the state statute contains an inadequate “mother’s life” exception, and the civil remedies provided in the state statute place an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion. These constitutional objections were considered and accepted by the district court and formed the basis for its permanent injunction. The plaintiffs also raised other issues including a legitimate state interest argument which raised equal protection and substantive due process questions. The district court declined to address these issues as they were not relevant to the litigation. Id. at 295. After awaiting the expiration of the stay period due to the amendment process, conducting discovery, and preparation for trial, the district court heard testimony in a bench trial during the period May 3-6, 1999. The district court heard medical testimony from three witnesses who were certified as experts in abortion practice: Dr. Pablo Rodriguez, a plaintiff, Dr. Phillip Stubblefield of Boston Medical Center, and the defense witness, Dr. Frank Boehm of Vanderbilt University Hospital. During the course of the litigation, the defendants challenged the plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action as it was determined that no Rhode Island doctor (including both plaintiffs/doctors) had ever performed an abortion using the D & X procedure and that there was no evidence that an abortion using the D & X procedure had even been performed in Rhode Island. Id. at 298. The district court, after an exhaustive discussion of standing, found that all plaintiffs had the requisite standing to bring this action. Id. at 301-04. The district court also noted that four other federal district courts had reviewed state laws similar to Rhode Island’s attempted ban on partial abortion. Id. at 300. In all cases, appeals had been taken to the applicable Circuit Court and awaited decision therefrom. In all four district court decisions, the state statutes were declared unconstitutional. Some of the plaintiffs’ counsel here also participated in one or more of these four cases. In the end, the plaintiffs prevailed on four of their constitutional challenges and the district court declined to reach the arguments on substantive due process and equal protection. Id. at 316. The plaintiffs did not lose any of their arguments, rather, as to two arguments, the district court simply declined to address them as they were not relevant or necessary to the determination of the litigation. As previously stated, the district court found that the state statute had four distinct constitutional flaws. The district court did not decide whether a state could ban the D & X procedure, but did find that the state statute failed to do that. A permanent injunction was issued against the enforcement of the state’s ban on partial birth abortion. Id. at 317. Thereafter, the defendants appealed the district court’s decision to the First Circuit. At some point during the appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). Sten-berg decided the fate of the Nebraska statute which was very similar to Rhode Island’s. That fate was to declare the Nebraska statute unconstitutional. Thereafter, one of the defendants, then Attorney General Whitehouse, withdrew his appeal. However, then Governor Almond pursued his appeal, but limited his appeal to a narrow issue. Governor Almond did not contest the merits of the district court’s determination, but did argue that since none of the plaintiffs perform D & X abortion procedures, no plaintiff had the standing to challenge the state statute as to post-viability abortions. Rhode Island Medical Soc. v. Whitehouse, 239 F.3d 104, 105 (1st Cir.2001). Therefore, the district court erred in enjoining any post-viability application of the state statute. This argument had been made in similar form and rejected in the district court. The First Circuit stated, after cancelling the scheduled oral argument, that the state statute’s definition of the D & X procedure did not distinguish between pre and post-viability abortion procedures and “what [Governor Almond] seeks to do is to sever an unconstitutional application of the [state statute] from, what he contends would be, a constitutional application.” Id. at 106. The First Circuit discussed severability and determined that the state statute was not susceptible to severance as the manner in which it was written was not clear as to what applied pre and post-viability. The First Circuit rejected the governor’s claim in a brief per curiam decision and affirmed the judgment of the district court. Shortly thereafter, the First Circuit denied the Governor’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. That action ended this litigation. In July 2001, the plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and related costs in the district court and in the First Circuit. The district court referred its motion to a magistrate judge and a hearing was held on January 23, 2002. Subsequently, the First Circuit referred its motion to the district court which referred it to the magistrate judge. A new hearing was noticed as to both motions and was held on July 10, 2003. Discussion The United States Supreme Court stated in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), that “[a] request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” While the district court must exercise some supervision and review over these requests, it need not perform a line-by-line review of attorney time records or “drown in a rising tide of fee-generated minutiae.” United States v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm’n., 847 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1988). A. Prevailing Party Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing party is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees unless “special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Pontarelli v. Stone, 781 F.Supp. 114, 119 (D.R.I.1992), appeal dismissed, 978 F.2d 773 (1st Cir.1992) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs are defined as prevailing when they “succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit.” Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir.1978), overruled on other grounds by Richardson v. Miller, 279 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2002). In short, “a plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship be tween itself and the defendant.” Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989); see also Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (“In short, a plaintiff ‘prevails’ when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.”). In the case at bar, the plaintiffs can demonstrate that they succeeded on significant issues in the litigation and achieved the benefit they sought in bringing the suit. The district court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs. As a result of the plaintiffs’ efforts, the State of Rhode Island is no longer enforcing R.I. Gen. Laws § 23^1.12. Consequently, the plaintiffs constitute “prevailing parties” for purposes of calculating attorneys’ fees. B. Lodestar Approach The Supreme Court of the United States and the First Circuit use the lodestar approach to calculate attorneys’ fees. The lodestar approach multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Andrade v. Jamestown Housing Authority, 82 F.3d 1179, 1190 (1st Cir.1996); Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 937 (1st Cir.1992). The courts have deemed the lodestar fee presumptively reasonable, although it is subject to an upward or downward adjustment in certain circumstances. See Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d at 937 (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)). To calculate the reasonable hours expended, courts ascertain the time counsel actually spent on the case “and then subtract from that figure hours which were duplicative, unproductive, excessive, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. (quoting Grendel’s Den. Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 950 (1st Cir.1984)). For example, “[t]he time for two or three lawyers in a courtroom or conference, when one would do, ‘may obviously be discounted.’ ” Hart v. Bourque, 798 F.2d 519, 523 (1st Cir.1986) (quoting King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1027 (1st Cir.1977)); see also Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d at 938 (“A trial court should ordinarily greet a claim that several lawyers were required to perform a single set of tasks with healthy skepticism.”) (citations omitted). In addition, “[cjlerical or secretarial tasks ought not to be billed at lawyer’s rates, even if a lawyer performs them.” Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d at 940 (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989)). To determine the reasonable hourly rate, courts utilize the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community....” Andrade v. Jamestown Housing Authority, 82 F.3d at 1190; see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. at 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (defining “prevailing market rates” as “those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation”); United States v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm’n, 847 F.2d 12, 19 (1st Cir.1988) (stating that courts look to the “prevailing rates in the community for comparably qualified attorneys”). The district court is not obligated to adopt the petitioning attorney’s customary billing rate or what that attorney asserts is the prevailing rate in the community. See Andrade v. Jamestown Housing Authority, 82 F.3d at 1190. On the contrary, the district court is “entitled to rely upon its own knowledge of attorney’s fees in its ■ surrounding area....” Id. (citing Nydam v. Lennerton, 948 F.2d 808, 812-13 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm’n., 847 F.2d at 19). The party requesting attorney’s fees maintains the burden of providing sufficient documentation and “evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 77 F.Supp.2d 258, 263 (D.R.I.1999) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 235 F.3d 713 (2001). The documentation must constitute a “full and specific accounting of the tasks performed, the dates of the performance, and the number of hours spent on each task.” Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d 518, 527 (1st Cir.1991) (citations omitted). The rationale for requiring a full and specific accounting is to allow the District Court “to gage whether the task performed was warranted,” and whether “the time factor allocated was appropriate or excessive.” Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land, 32 F.3d 632, 634 (1st Cir.1994). C. Upward or Downward Departure Calculating the lodestar equation does not terminate the inquiry into the fee award. The District Court may adjust the fee upward or downward depending on other factors, including the results obtained. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. The result obtained is particularly crucial where a plaintiff is deemed ‘prevailing’ even though he succeeded on only some of his claims for relief. In this situation two questions must be addressed. First, did the plaintiff fail to prevail on claims that were unrelated to the claims on which he succeeded? Second, did the plaintiff achieve a level of success that makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for making a fee award? Id. On the other hand, to avoid double counting, “considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing counsel’s representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate” and therefore, “the overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the lodestar” to remove “any danger of ‘double counting.’” Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). To attain an upward adjustment, the fee applicant has the burden of proving that such an adjustment is necessary. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. at 898, 104 S.Ct. 1541. In Sherwood Brands of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Smith Enterprises, Inc., C.A. 00-287T, 2002 WL 32157515, **1-2 (D.R.I. September 3, 2002), unpublished, at 2-3, the court stated: Following the calculation of the lodestar, the Court may, in its discretion, allow for limited upward or downward adjustments. Id. at 951, 104 S.Ct. 1541; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Such adjustments may allow for “ ‘delay in payment, quality of representation (i.e., an unusually good or poor performance above or below the skill already reflected in the hourly rates), exceptional (and unexpected) results obtained, etc.’ ” Grendel’s Den, 749 F.2d at 951 (quoting Furtado v. Bishop, 635 F.2d 915, 920 (1st Cir.1980)). In determining the lodestar amount, a district court “may calculate the lodestar amount based upon its own estimation of reasonable time necessary to perform tasks at issue, and a compensation rate for a competent lawyer in performing those tasks.” Id. at 2002 WL 32157515, *1. D. Application 1. Request for Fees by Attorneys Weiss, Borgmann, and Camp for Legal Work in the District Court Attorney Weiss seeks compensation for 425.23 hours; Attorney Borgmann requests compensation for 697.75 hours; and Attorney Camp asks this court to compensate her for 263.00 hours. Each attorney has submitted a Declaration providing background information regarding their legal education, training, and experience. Coupled with that information, these attorneys have supplied a breakdown of their work by date, work performed, hours expended, and hours actually billed. A summary for each attorney is in order. Attorney Weiss Attorney Weiss was the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project (“ACLU-RFP”) and the lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The ACLU-RFP, as counsel or amicus,-was involved in seven challenges to various statutes banning partial birth abortions and Attorney Weiss, as Director, supervised all seven. She played a role in the early litigations in developing legal strategies and theories and has devoted her legal career to litigating reproductive rights cases. She is a 1987 graduate of Yale Law School and clerked for a Circuit Court judge. Thereafter, she joined the ACLU and became Director of Litigation for the ACLU-RFP in 1992 and Director in 1997. She has been involved in litigation concerning various reproductive rights issues and states that “I have developed a special expertise in working with abortion providers as well as other medical experts and an understanding of the medical facts surrounding their practice. In addition, I have an extensive knowledge of the relevant federal and state constitutional case law in this field.” Weiss' Declaration at ¶ 6. In this litigation, Attorney Weiss was lead counsel and assigned tasks to other counsel and, generally, devised the legal strategies and theories. She had primary responsibility for preparation of the pleadings and the affidavits supporting the plaintiffs’ request for a TRO and for the briefs submitted to the district court. She appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs during several motion hearings in district court and was deeply engaged in the discovery process. She was lead counsel during the trial and participated in the drafting of the post-trial and reply briefs. Although Attorney Weiss recorded 520.52 hours of legal time on this matter,’ she pared that number to 425.23 in the exercise of billing judgment to eliminate any duplicative or unnecessary effort.. Attorney Weiss requests the court apply an hourly rate of $350 for a total of $148,830.50. Attorney Borgmann Attorney Borgmann is the State Legislative coordinator for ACLU-RFP and was an attorney for the plaintiffs in this matter. Attorney Borgmann is a 1991 graduate of New York University Law School and, thereafter, clerked for a. federal district judge. She then became associated with a large New York City law firm and, in 1997, joined the ACLU-RFP. Beginning in 1997, Attorney Borgmann analyzed, wrote on, and advised affiliates concerning various “partial birth abortion bans” including Rhode Island’s. Prior to joining ACLU-RFP full-time, Attorney Borgmann worked on some reproductive rights cases (legal research and drafting) for ACLU-RFP including when she was a law student and as a cooperating attorney. In the instant case, Attorney Borgmann’s work included “much of the factual development, and the bulk of the drafting.” Borgmann Declaration at ¶ 6. She also prepared witnesses for their depositions and “defended” those depositions. At trial, Attorney Borgmann presented the testimonies from three doctors. During the pretrial stage, Attorney Borgmann presented argument on the motions to stay, to amend the complaint and to continue the TRO. Although the records of the ACLU-RFP state that Attorney Borgmann worked 949.25 hours on this matter, she requests only compensation for 697.75 hours due to reductions for any duplicative or unnecessary work and for tasks that could have been performed by a more junior attorney. Attorney Borgmann seeks an hourly rate of $300.00 for a total of $209,325.00. Attorney Camp Attorney Camp is a staff attorney for the ACLU-RFP and was at the time this matter was filed and tried. She also prepared the principal Declaration in support of this attorneys’ fee request. She has been a staff attorney since 1996. Prior to filing the Rhode Island challenge, Attorney Camp stated she worked on the ACLU-RFP’s challenges to the Michigan, New Jersey, Idaho and Kentucky partial birth abortion bans. Attorney Camp is a 1994 graduate of Columbia Law School and then clerked for a Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. In this matter, Attorney Camp drafted the brief in support of the TRO and preliminary injunction; worked with Drs. Stubblefield and Rodriguez on ■ their affidavits; prepared Dr. Stubblefield for a hearing on the preliminary injunction; amended the complaint after the statute was amended; conducted the cross-examination of Dr. Boehm; prepared cross-examination for another medical defense witness who was later withdrawn; and drafted a portion of the post-trial brief. Attorney Camp stated that while other attorneys at the ACLU-RFP also provided legal assistance on this matter, no compensation for their time is sought. Attorney Camp expended a total of 666.50 hours in this matter, but reduced that to 263.00 hours. She requests an hourly rate of $250.00 for a total of $65,750.00. 2. Request for Fees by Local Counsel, Attorney Labinger, for Legal Work in the District Court. Attorney Labinger acted as Local Counsel for the plaintiffs as required by Local Rule 5(c). Attorney Labinger is a 1974 graduate of New York University Law School and was a law clerk to then Chief Judge Raymond J. Pettine of this court. In 2000, she was inducted as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. In private practice, Attorney Labinger has been engaged in litigation involving civil rights and/or constitutional law. On many occasions, Attorney Labinger has served as cooperating counsel for the Rhode Island Affiliate of the ACLU including matters involving abortion issues. She testified in the Rhode Island Senate against the legislation that was ultimately passed by the General Assembly and formed the basis for this law suit. She reviewed the testimony in Congress related to the federal statute on the partial birth abortion ban. Attorney Labinger opined that in order to develop the legal challenge to the Rhode Island statute, she would need to possess detailed knowledge concerning the various methods of performing abortions. When she agreed to act as cooperating counsel for the Rhode Island Affiliate of the ACLU, Attorney Labinger did not possess “sufficient expertise as to the necessary medical knowledge and its interplay with legal precedent to serve as lead counsel in this constitutional challenge and that there was no attorney in Rhode Island who did.” Labinger Affidavit at ¶ 10. She did not and does not now limit her practice to reproductive rights challenges and knows of no other Rhode Island attorney who does. Consequently, she worked with the ACLU-RFP in this matter to develop legal strategies in this challenge, with the ACLU-RFP counsel to be lead counsel. Attorney Labinger stated that “I had a much more active role in the development and presentation of the challenge at both the trial and appellate levels, providing my experience and knowledge as a civil rights litigator, and in developing strategies as to presentation or argument in written motions and briefs and at hearings and trial and in the development and presentation of evidence at trial.” Labinger Affidavit at ¶ 12. Attorney Labinger stated that no time spent by her law partner or her paralegal was included in her hours and her time was reduced in other areas. She requests an hourly rate of $225 for her 212.40 hours for a total of $47,790.00. Prevailing Party To recover attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a plaintiff must be a “prevailing party.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). “ ‘[Plaintiffs may be considered “prevailing parties” for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.’” Id. (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir.1978)). In other words, a plaintiff “need not achieve total victory in order to be deemed a ‘prevailing’ party.” Pontarelli v. Stone, 781 F.Supp. 114, 119 (D.R.I.1992). Once plaintiffs cross the threshold of establishing themselves as “prevailing parties,” the trial court has the discretion to decide what fees are reasonable. Id. at 120. The plaintiffs argue that, subsequent to the filing of this matter, the district court entered a TRO on July 11, 1997 which continued after the statute was amended and remained in effect until the court’s final decision, following trial, when a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the statute entered. Therefore, they are “the prevailing parties in this matter and are entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.” Plfs.’ Motion at 2. The defendants do not dispute that the plaintiffs are prevailing parties and are entitled to “reasonable” fees that do not include time for duplicative, unproductive, excessive, or unnecessary legal work. Defs.’ Mem. at 4. Consequently, this court finds that the plaintiffs are the prevailing party and, as such, are entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Hours Reasonably Expended in the District Court To calculate the reasonable hours expended, courts ascertain the time counsel actually spent on the case “and then subtract from that figure hours which were duplicative, unproductive, excessive, or otherwise unnecessary.” Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 937 (quoting Grendel’s Den. Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 950 (1st Cir.1984)). For example, “[t]he time for two or three lawyers in a courtroom or conference, when one would do, ‘may obviously be discounted.’ ” Hart v. Bourque, 798 F.2d 519, 523 (1st Cir.1986) (quoting King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1027 (1st Cir.1977)); see also Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d at 938 (“A trial court should ordinarily greet a claim that several lawyers were required to perform a single set of tasks with healthy skepticism.”) (citations omitted). In addition, “[cjlerical or secretarial tasks ought not to be billed at lawyer’s rates, even if a lawyer performs them.” Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d at 940 (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989)). In this matter, between the four counsel for the plaintiffs, there are over 1200 time entries. I do not intend nor do I believe I am required to address each entry. The defendants argue generally that many of the descriptions of legal work are in