MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Adopting in Part and Modifying in Part Magistrate Judge Facciola’s Report and Recommendation; Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Defendant’s Motion to Alter Judgment
This matter is before the court on the defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, issued February 16, 2010, addressing the defendant’s motion to alter a prior judgment of this court. The plaintiffs, who commenced actions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education and Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400
et seq.,
moved for attorney’s fees after prevailing in those proceedings. On March 26, 2009,
II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs are thirty-two minor children, their guardians and court-appointed educational advoeates.2d Report at 1. The plaintiffs prevailed in thirty-six due process hearings and reached two settlement agreements with the defendant. Id. Following the due process hearings, the plaintiffs filed a petition for attorney’s fees in the amount of $64,886 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), Local Civil Rule 54.2 and 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). Pls.’ Pet. for Atty’s Fees (“Pis.’ Pet.”) at 1-2. The court then referred the plaintiffs’ petition to Magistrate Judge Facciola for a Report and Recommendation on whether the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees and, if so, the proper measure of such an award. 2d Report at 1-2.
On February 26, 2009, Magistrate Judge Facciola issued the First Report, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part the plaintiffs’ petition for fees.
Id.
The defendant objected to four aspects of the First Report: (1) the application of the
Laffey
Matrix
1
hourly rates as the measure of reasonable attorney’s fees; (2) the awarding of fees for services performed by attorney Abdus-Shahid; (3) the awarding of fees for services performed by the individual identified as “JMS”; and (4) the awarding of fees for services performed by the educational advocate for plaintiff N.R.
See
On April 2, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to alter the court’s ruling. See generally Def.’s Mot. to Alter J. The defendant asserted that the court erred by (1) applying the Laffey Matrix as the measure of reasonable attorney’s fees in this case, (2) awarding any fees for the services performed by attorney Abdus-Shahid and (3) by awarding any fees for the services performed by the individual identified as “JMS.” See generally id. The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Facciola for a Second Report and Recommendation, Minute Order (Apr. 2, 2009), which he issued on February 16, 2010, see generally 2d Report. The Second Report recommends that the court deny the defendant’s motion in all respects. See generally 2d Report. The defendant promptly filed objections to the Second Report, asserting the same three errors raised in its motion to alter judgment. See generally Def.’s Objections to Feb. 16, 2010 Report & Recommendation (“Def.’s Objs.”). The plaintiffs filed their response to the defendant’s objections on March 8, 2010, see generally Pis.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Objs. (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), and the defendant filed a reply on March 15, 2010, see generally Def.’s Reply. With this matter now ripe for adjudication, the court turns to the applicable legal standards and the parties’ arguments.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard for a Rule 59(e) Motion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of the judgment at issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). While the court has considerable discretion in ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion, the reconsideration and amendment of a previous order is an unusual measure.
Firestone v. Firestone,
B. Legal Standard for Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Costs under the IDEA
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) requires a party seeking attorney’s fees and “related non-taxable expenses” to file a motion with the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). The motion “must specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the moving party to the award.”
Id.
It must also state the amount or provide a fair amount of the award sought.
Id.; see also Herbin v. District of Columbia,
*101
The IDEA allows the parents of a disabled child to recover “reasonable attorneys’ fees” so long as they are the “prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). A court’s determination of the appropriate attorney’s fees, in other words, is based on a two-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the party seeking attorney’s fees is the prevailing party.
Id.
A prevailing party “is one who has been awarded some relief by a court.”
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,
Second, the court must determine whether the attorney’s fees sought are reasonable. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.”
Hensley v. Eckerhart,
The plaintiff also bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the hourly rate sought.
In re North,
“Once plaintiffs have provided such information, there is a presumption that the number of hours billed and the hourly rates are reasonable.”
Blackman v. District of Columbia,
C. The Court Committed No Error in Applying the Laffey Matrix
The defendant argues that the court erred in relying on the Laffey Matrix because those rates apply only in the context of complex federal litigation and are therefore not an appropriate measure of prevailing rates in the context of IDEA administrative proceedings. See Def.’s Objs. at 10-14. The defendant points out that two judges in this district have rejected the application of Laffey rates for services rendered in connection with IDEA administrative proceedings. Id. at 10-11. The plaintiffs respond that most judges in this district have routinely held that the Laffey Matrix provides presumptively reasonable rates for legal fees incurred in connection with IDEA administrative proceedings. Pls.’ Opp’n at 2-3.
*102
This court expressly adopts and incorporates by reference herein Magistrate Judge Facciola’s findings on this issue and concludes that the court committed no legal error in relying on the
Laffey
Matrix to determine the prevailing market rate.
See
2d Report at 8-10. To these findings, the court adds only that numerous judges in this district have applied
Laffey
rates in the context of fee awards arising out of IDEA administrative proceedings.
See Kaseman v. District of Columbia,
Although the defendant complains that this court failed to engage in “reasoned decision-making” in declining to distinguish the decisions on which the defendant relies, Def.’s Objs. at 11, the court reminds the defendant that these two district court decisions have no binding effect on this court, are contrary to the weight of the precedent and declined to address the decisions listed above, with which they are in conflict.
See generally AC. ex rel. Clark v. District of Columbia,
The defendant also faults the court for “ignoring” the fee schedule recently promulgated by the D.C. Public School System (“DCPS”), Def.’s Mot. to Alter J., Ex. B at 3, which, the defendant contends, represents a more accurate overview of the fees charged by attorneys litigating IDEA administrative actions, Def.’s Mot. to Alter J. at 8-9. Yet, the defendant declined to mention the DCPS fee schedule in its opposition to the plaintiffs’ fee petition. See generally Def.’s Resp. to Pis.’ Mot. for Atty’s Fees (“Def.’s Resp.”). Indeed, the first time the defendant advocated the application of the DCPS fee schedule was in its objection to the First Report, and even then, the defendant failed to offer any explanation as to how the DCPS derived the fee schedule and why it represented an accurate measure of prevailing market rates in the context of IDEA administrative proceedings. 4 See Def.’s Objs. to First Report at 4-5. Given the ample precedent for applying the Laffey Matrix rates in similar contexts, coupled with the defendant’s failure to provide a supporting justification for the DCPS fee schedule, the court did not err in declining to adopt the DCPS fee schedule in its prior decision. Under these circumstances, the court declines to alter its prior ruling that the Laffey Matrix provides the prevailing market rate for legal services rendered in connection with IDEA administrative proceedings.
D. The Court Modifies Its Prior Ruling Regarding the Fees Sought by Attorney Abdus-Shahid
The defendant contends that even if the Laffey Matrix has some applicability in the IDEA context, the court erred in “mechanically” applying such rates to the fees sought by attorney Abdus-Shahid. Def.’s Objs. at 2-3, 5-9. The defendants note that the plaintiffs offered no information whatsoever concerning Abdus-Shahid’s standard billing practices, legal experience or reputation, as necessary to establish the reasonableness of such rates in this case. Id. at 6. The plaintiffs respond that the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding a reduced fee award for services rendered by Abdus-Shahid. Pl.’s Opp’n at 2.
*104
In its prior decision, the court noted that although there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the legal work done by Abdus-Shahid, the plaintiff had failed to submit any information concerning Abdus-Shahid’s qualifications or experience, as needed to establish the reasonableness of his requested billing rate of $250 per hour.
See
The court notes at the outset that the
Laffey
Matrix provides prevailing market rates based on an attorney’s years of experience.
See
U.S. Atty’s Office for D.C.,
Laffey
Matrix 2003-2009, http://www. justice.gov/usao/dc/Divisions/CiviL Division/Laffey_Matrix_7.html. Thus, to determine the prevailing market rate for an attorney of Abdus-Shahid’s experience, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to supply information regarding his years of practice.
See id.
Because the plaintiffs failed to provide such information (and, indeed, still have not provided such information despite having had numerous opportunities to do so), the best that could be said for attorney Abdus-Shahid is that his prevailing market rate was the lowest rate under the
Laffey
Matrix — that of an attorney with only one to three years of experience.
See id.
Ultimately, the court applied this rate in calculating the fee award for Abdus-Shahid.
See
Yet, as previously discussed, the prevailing market rate is but one of the elements needed to establish the reasonableness of a billing rate sought in a fee application.
See Covington,
In this case, the plaintiffs offered no information concerning Abdus-Shahid’s standard billing practices or his skill, experience or reputation so as to demonstrate that he is, in fact, entitled to the
Laffey
Matrix rate.
See generally
Pis.’ Pet. Furthermore, the defendant has offered specific contrary evidence to rebut the appropriateness of applying the
Laffey
Matrix rate to Abdus-Shahid, including the fact that the two administrative proceedings for which Abdus-Shahid provided billing
*105
invoices settled before any hearing commenced and did not involve any pre-hearing discovery, the preparation of expert witnesses or any motion practice.
See
Def.’s Objs. at 7-8;
cf. Kaseman,
At the same time, the court rejects the defendant’s assertion that the court must deny any award for Abdus-Shahid’s work based on the plaintiffs’ failure to establish the reasonableness of the fees sought.
See
Def.’s Objs. at 7-9. This Circuit has expressly approved the reduction of requested fees for attorney who have “submitted nothing” to support the reasonableness of their billing rates.
See Role Models Am., Inc. v. Broionlee,
Thus, consistent with this precedent, the court reduces the billing rate sought by Abdus-Shahid to that of an inexperienced attorney under the Laffey Matrix based on the plaintiffs’ failure to provide any information regarding where on the matrix Abdus-Shahid falls, and applies an additional twenty-five percent reduction to that rate based on the plaintiffs’ failure to provide *106 any documentation supporting the reasonableness of that rate as applied in this case.
E. The Court Committed No Error in Awarding Fees for Services Performed by JMS
The defendant contends that the court erred in awarding any fees for services performed by the individual identified on the billing invoice as “JMS.” Def.’s Objs. at 2-5. It notes that other than an invoice showing that JMS was billed out at $150 per hour, the plaintiffs failed to provide any information concerning JMS, declining even to disclose that individual’s name. Id. at 3. The plaintiffs maintain that the court properly awarded a reduced fee amount based on their failure to properly support the fees assessed for services provided by JMS. Pl.’s Opp’n at 1.
This court expressly adopts and incorporates by reference herein Magistrate Judge Facciola’s findings on this issue and concludes that the court committed no error in awarding the plaintiffs a reduced fee award for services provided by JMS. See 2d Report at 7. The court notes that this Circuit has expressly approved the practice of awarding reduced fees in circumstances in which a claimant has offered nothing to demonstrate the reasonableness of the fee sought for paralegal services:
[The claimant] has the burden of justifying the rates at which these [law clerks and legal assistants] billed for their time, but it has submitted no information about the prevailing market rate for law clerks and legal assistants in the Washington area, nor has it referred to either of the two matrices that we have previously said litigants may rely upon when seeking fees. [The claimant] has not even taken the basic step of submitting an affidavit detailing the non-attorneys’ experience and education. Because [the claimant] has justified neither the law clerk’s nor the legal assistants’ requested rates — and thus has failed to carry its burden — we will reduce those rates by twenty-five percent.
Role Models,
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts in part and modifies in part Magistrate Judge Facciola’s Second Report and grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion to alter judgment. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 19th day of March, 2010.
Notes
. The
Laffey
Matrix is “a schedule of charges based on years of experience.”
Covington v. District of Columbia,
. Magistrate Judge Facciola recommended a twenty-five percent rate reduction in the billing rate sought by Abdus-Shahid ($250 per hour) based on his failure to provide any supporting documentation concerning his professional experience or customary hourly rate.
. Magistrate Judge Facciola recommended reducing the billing rate requested for work done by JMS ($150 per hour) to that of a paralegal under the
Laffey
Matrix ($110 per hour) based on the plaintiffs' failure to provide any supporting information regarding the experience or qualifications of that individual. 1st Report at 14. The court modified that recommendation by reducing by one-half the total hours claimed for work done by JMS and reducing the
Laffey
Matrix's paralegal rate by an additional twenty-five percent (to $82.50 per hour) based on the absence of supporting documentation demonstrating the
*100
reasonableness of the fee sought.
. The only document submitted by the defendant that remotely touches on the accuracy of the DCPS fee schedule is the declaration of Quinne Lindsey-Harris, a supervising attorney in the DCPS Office of General Counsel, who relates the general billing patterns that she has observed in her experience reviewing IDEA fee applications. See Def.'s Mot. to Alter J., Ex. A ¶ 14. Yet Lindsey-Harris’s declaration provides no indication of what the prevailing market rates are for attorneys possessing less than ten years experience or for paralegals. See generally id. Moreover, her observations of billing rates for experienced attorneys do not correspond with the rates set forth in the DCPS fee schedule. Compare id. with Def.’s Mot. to Alter J., Ex. B at 3.
. The defendant relies heavily on
In re North,
a decision in which the Circuit awarded no recovery based on the absence of any competent evidence of reasonableness in the fee application.
. Although the defendant places great emphasis on the fact that the plaintiffs failed to disclose JMS's real name, see Def.'s Objs. at 3-5, the defendant fails to explain how this failure warrants the complete nullification of any fee award for this individual, given the clear authority authorizing the award of a reduced fee amount in the absence of any evidence supporting the reasonableness of the rate charged,
see Role Models,