
    Patricia FRANCOIS, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Matthew MAZER, Sheryl Shade, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants.
    No. 12-3545-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 25, 2013.
    George David Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, PC, New York, NY, for Appellants.
    Jason W. Myatt (Jennifer H. Rearden, Adam H. Offenhartz, on the brief), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: CHESTER J. STRAUB, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendants-Appellants Matthew Mazer and Sheryl Shade appeal from a supplemental judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.) awarding attorney’s fees and costs totaling $72,969.70 to Plaintiff-Appellee, Patricia Francois, after Francois received a favorable jury verdict following a trial on her claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

Beginning on June 4, 2012, a jury trial was held on plaintiffs claims based on FLSA, NYLL, contract, and tort — assault and battery — and on defendant Mazer’s counterclaims for assault and battery. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on her FLSA, NYLL, and assault claims. The district court entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $13,950.72, of which $8,950.72 was awarded on plaintiffs FLSA and NYLL claims.

Following entry of judgment, plaintiff submitted an application for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of her FLSA and NYLL claims, as permitted by the relevant fee-shifting provisions. Plaintiff sought $348,737.50 in attorney’s fees and $82,525.45 in costs. The district court imposed a 40% across-the-board reduction of the number of hours submitted and substantially reduced the hourly rate charged by plaintiffs counsel and the amounts claimed as photocopying and online research costs. The district court awarded $42,505.50 in attorney’s fees and $80,464.20 in costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Defendants appeal that judgment.

We review a district court’s decision awarding attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. McDaniel v. Cnty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir.2010). Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are awarded as a matter of right to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under the FLSA or NYLL. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 198(1-a), 668(1). The parties do not dispute that plaintiff, as a prevailing party, is entitled to fees and costs.

Awards of attorney’s fees are generally calculated according to the “presumptively reasonable fee” method, calculated as the product of the number of hours worked and a reasonable hourly rate. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 183-84 (2d Cir.2008). Defendants do not challenge the hourly rate set by the district court; rather, they focus on the number of hours claimed by plaintiffs counsel.

Defendants contend that the 40% across-the-board reduction in the number of hours imposed by the district court was insufficient and that the resulting fee award is unreasonable. Specifically, defendants challenge a number of time entries that they contend are not related to plaintiffs FLSA and NYLL claims. Defendants argue that the district court should have stricken these entries. A district court, however, need not “set forth item-by-item findings concerning what may be countless objections to individual billing items.” Lunday v. City of Albany, 42 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.1994). Rather, in dealing with items that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, ... the court has discretion simply to deduct a reasonable percentage of the number of hours claimed as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application.” Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 173 (2d Cir.1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court, in imposing a 40% reduction in plaintiffs counsel’s hours — a reduction which we deem to be reasonable under the circumstances— acted well within its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.

Defendants next challenge the district court’s award of costs. Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to provide adequate information supporting her requests for costs incurred for trial and deposition transcripts, photocopying, and online research. As with attorney’s fees, however, a court need not conduct an individual review of each item presented in an application for costs. Rather, when items are insufficiently itemized or not supported by an explanation as to why such expenditures were necessary, the court may reduce the total amount awarded based on the court’s estimate of those expenditures, United States ex rel. Evergreen Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Merritt Meridian Constr. Co., 95 F.3d 153, 173 (2d Cir.1996), as the district court did here. The court reduced the costs incurred in conducting online research by approximately 90% and costs incurred for photocopying by approximately 80%. These reductions resulted in an award of costs representing a 63% reduction from the total amount of costs sought by plaintiff. We find this reduction, and the total amount of costs awarded, to be reasonable. Defendants have provided us no basis on which to conclude that the district court erred in finding plaintiffs request for transcript costs to be reasonable. Defendants have failed to establish that the district court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in awarding costs to plaintiff.

A review of the record leads us to conclude that defendants have not established that the district court committed reversible error in awarding attorney’s fees and costs. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The jury found in favor of defendant Mazer on his counterclaim for assault but determined that he had not established that he was entitled to compensatory damages for that claim.
     