MEMORANDUM & ORDER This motion for attorneys’ fees and costs arises out of a 1972 class action (“Willowbrook Litigation”) related to the deprivation of basic rights, including unclean and unsafe living conditions, of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities housed at the Willowbrook State Developmental Center in Staten Island, New York. The litigation resulted in a 1975 Consent Judgment, which was replaced in 1993 by a Permanent Injunction (“Injunction”). The Injunction provided for, inter alia, legal services for members of the Willowbrook class, compliance monitoring, and attorneys’ fees and costs related to monitoring and enforcement of certain terms of the Injunction. After years of resolving fee disputes without court intervention, the parties have reached an unprecedented impasse. Plaintiffs’ counsel now bring the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and costs dating back to 2012, which the Court grants, subject to a number of modifications discussed herein.RELEVANT BACKGROUNDI. Monitoring and Enforcement Under the InjunctionThe facts surrounding the Willowbrook Litigation and the conditions that prompted the litigation are set forth in a number of prior opinions and the Court assumes familiarity with those facts. New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136 (2d Cir. 1983); New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children. Inc. v. Carey, 596 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1979); New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 393 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1975); New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752 (E.D.N.Y. 1973). Relevant to this motion, the Injunction requires that the New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (“OPWDD”) monitor the Willowbrook class and ensure class members receive certain Injunction-mandated services. Plaintiffs’ counsel are responsible for auditing OPWDD services targeting the Willowbrook class, compiling observed systemic deficiencies and approving the OPWDD’s plan to correct those deficiencies. However, attempts to resolve whether the OPWDD has, in fact, complied with its obligation to create and implement plans to correct systemic deficiencies have been unsuccessful for over 20 years. Haroules Decl., ECF No. 127, 20, n.22; Baer Decl., ECF No. 131, 19-20. Whereas the OPWDD takes the position that systemic deficiencies have been adequately corrected and Plaintiffs’ counsels’ monitoring and enforcement role must be dramatically reduced, if not entirely eliminated, Baer Decl. ECF No. 131,
18, 20, n.26, Plaintiffs’ counsel maintains the OPWDD has yet to achieve full compliance with the terms of the Injunction and as a result counsel must continue to perform critical monitoring and enforcement activities, Haroules Decl., ECF No. 127, 20, n.22. Plaintiffs’ counsel continues to request attorneys’ fees related to those endeavors.Plaintiffs’ counsel also perform an advocacy role for the Willowbrook class pursuant to the terms of the Injunction. Counsel ensure class members receive notice with respect to any changes in placement or programming and review grievances and incident reporting with respect to Injunction compliance. Plaintiffs’ counsel consists of attorneys from the New York Civil Liberties Union (“NYCLU”) and New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (“NYLPI”). NYPLI “takes the lead role on due process notices” and NYCLU “addresses protection from harm issues,” “guardianship matters, end of life issues, medical consent issues…research initiatives” as well as “regulatory initiatives, legislative enactments and programmatic initiatives issued by the New York State Department of Health and/or the…OPWDD.” Haroules Decl., ECF No. 127,
