Opinion ID: 2599393
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Court reporter expenses

Text: The circuit court awarded $4,487.96 for court reporter fees. In support of her request, Buscher provided itemized invoices describing the case name, the date of the deposition, the names of the deponent and the court reporter, and the cost of the deposition. Despite having this detailed information, Defendants make only a general objection that there was no explanation or support for why [Buscher] is entitled to these costs. . . . [Buscher] failed to present any explanation in her bill of costs to assist the Court in determining whether the depositions listed were reasonable or necessary. This general objection is substantially similar to the objection rejected in Wong. 88 Hawai`i at 53, 961 P.2d at 618 (rejecting non-moving party's argument that the moving party's cost request contained no explanation as to why these depositions and/or costs they incurred were necessary. . . . [the moving party's] failure to show why these depositions and/or costs they incurred were necessary make it clear that it would be an abuse of discretion for this court to tax them to [the adverse party]). As set forth above, when costs are awardable to a prevailing party under HRCP Rule 54(d) and a particular taxable cost is allowed by statute or precedent, then actual disbursements for this purpose are presumptively reasonable. The adverse party has the burden of challenging the reasonableness of a particular cost request. Id. at 53-54, 961 P.2d at 618-19. HRS § 607-9 clearly allows expenses for deposition transcript originals and copies. Defendants do not indicate which of the depositions were unreasonably obtained or unnecessary and therefore do not carry their burden of showing that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding this cost. See Int'l Bro. of Elec. Workers, 68 Haw. at 322 n. 7, 713 P.2d at 950 n. 7. We thus hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Buscher court reporter expenses. Because Defendants do not specifically contest the remainder of Buscher's request, such costs will be presumed reasonable. See Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai`i 327, 335, 31 P.3d 184, 192 (2001) (No opposition was received regarding the reasonableness of the costs. In the absence of opposition, we presume that the remaining costs were reasonable.). Accordingly, Buscher is entitled to costs in the amount of $20,002.82, which reflects a reduction for meals from Buscher's travel expenses request.