ORDER

VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendants Matthew Martin Ware, Betty Lou Ware, Benjamin Blackstar, Corey Ware, Patricia Ware, Jean Ann Carter Ware, Edmond L. Carter, Carri Gwen DuPont, Patricia Ann Carter, Marcia W. Davilla, Mayredean Mammedaty Palmer, Janice C. Mammedaty, Katina Dherie Smith Lipton, William Kendrix Ware, Wesley Ware, III, Angela Rae Ware Silverhorn, Samuel Martin Ware, Rena A. Ware (Killsfirst), and Thomas Blackstar, III's (the "Individual Defendants") Motion for Recovery of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, filed September 1, 2016. On September 21, 2016, plaintiff filed its response,1 and on September 28, 2016, the Individual Defendants filed their reply. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

On November 11, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant action to condemn an easement. The Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 18, 2016, this Court granted the motion to dismiss. The Individual Defendants now move this Court, pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 55(D), for an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in litigating this action. Plaintiff does not contest that the Individual Defendants are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and expenses in this case; however, plaintiff asserts that many of the litigation expenses claimed by the Individual Defendants are not recoverable under Oklahoma law and that the billing rates charged by the Individual Defendants' counsel should be reduced to reflect reasonable, prevailing attorney fee rates in the Oklahoma marketplace.

Section 55(D) provides, in pertinent part:

Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 55(D).

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that attorney, appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees are recoverable in a condemnation action. See Okla. Turnpike Auth. v. New Life Pentecostal Church of Jenks, 870 P.2d 762, 764 (Okla. 1994). However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that other litigation expenses, such as copying, mileage, telephone and telefax expenses, and postage, are not recoverable and simply constitute components of the lawyer's overhead. See id. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Individual Defendants are only entitled to recover their attorney, appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees. Because all of the expenses requested by the Individual Defendants are "other litigation expenses" and not appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees, the Court finds that the expenses requested by the Individual Defendants are not recoverable.

Regarding an award of attorneys' fees, the amount of fees must be grounded on the touchstone of reasonableness. Under Oklahoma law, the reasonableness of attorneys' fees is determined using the following Burk2 factors: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys, (10) the "undesirability" of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.3 See Burk, 598 P.2d at 661. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has further held that "[r]easonable value of services should be predicated on the standards within the local legal community." Id. at 663. Further, "[u]nless the subject of the litigation is so unusual or requires such special skills that only an out-of-state attorney possesses, the fee rates of the local area should be applied even when the lawyers seeking fees are from another area." Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204, 1225 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, and having considered all of the Burk factors, the Court finds that the Individual Defendants' requested award of attorneys' fees is reasonable. Specifically, the Court finds that the hours expended by the Individual Defendants' counsel are reasonable and necessary. Further, the Court finds that under the particular, unique circumstances of the instant action, the requested hourly rates for the Individual Defendants' counsel are reasonable. Specifically, the Court finds the Individual Defendants could not afford to hire counsel and were unable to locate any counsel, let alone an attorney with expertise in Indian law, locally who would represent them. In her affidavit, Stephanie Hudson, Executive Director of Oklahoma Indian Legal Services ("OILS"), states that OILS determined there was no counsel in Oklahoma who would be able to represent the Individual Defendants. See Affidavit of Stephanie C. Hudson, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Reply in Support of the Individual Defendants' Motion for Recovery of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, at ¶ 3. Further, Ms. Hudson states:

Id. at ¶ 6. Ms. Hudson finally states that OILS does not have attorneys available or the financial resources to take on an action of this magnitude. See id. at ¶ 7.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Individual Defendants' Motion for Recovery of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses [docket no. 57] and AWARDS the Individual Defendants attorneys' fees against plaintiff Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC in the amount of $103,546.50.

IT IS SO ORDERED.