With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". adjustment is warranted. Second, Defendant argues that the Court should find the fee request unreasonable in light of the amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiff requested in his settlement letter. It is questionable if the letter is even relevant to the Court’s determination. Despite claiming that “weight of authority” allows the Court to look at the settlement letter, Defendant cited no controlling law on point. (Defendant’s Surreply, at 2.) In fact, the only case cited from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected the admission of evidence of settlement negotiations for the purpose of establishing the unreasonableness of Plaintiffs counsels request for fees. See Gaffney v. Allentown, Civ. A. No. 97-445, 1998 WL 32758, *1, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Jan.7, 1998) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if the Court considers the

A: holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper
B: holding that federal rule of evidence 408 prohibits admission of such evidence for purpose of establishing unreasonableness of plaintiffs counsels request for fees
C: holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion
D: holding that defendant has failed to provide any support for the novel argument that plaintiff should be denied fees because in defendants view plaintiffs counsel acted unreasonably in failing to accept defendants settlement offer and that consideration of settlement discussions on a motion for attorneys fees is barred by federal rule of evidence 408
B.