Opinion ID: 2630674
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Transcripts

Text: The State suggests that the Appellees' requests for transcript fees duplicate their bills of costs in the circuit court and that the Appellees did not submit proof of the contrary. Moreover, the State disputes the necessity of the transcripts for the Appellees' litigation of the appeal and crossappeal. Finally, the State argues that ParEn's documents are generally inadequate. The State attaches over seventy pages of exhibits to each opposition, including what appear to be the Appellees' verified bills of costs filed in the circuit court. ParEn's bill of costs apparently stated to the circuit court that ParEn incurred [t]rial transcript costs of $2,016.25. HGG apparently requested $18,657.61 for [f]ees for court reporter and deposition transcripts for all or any part of trial transcripts necessarily obtained for use in this case. Nonetheless, the State has not shown which, if any, such transcripts are duplicative of those used in the present appeal. In any case, the Appellees' obtaining transcripts to prepare for litigation was reasonably necessary inasmuch as the State's appeal and ParEn's cross-appeal challenged the evidentiary sufficiency of the circuit court's findings of negligence. Nevertheless, we agree with the State that ParEn has not explained the discrepancy between the amount it has documented, $323.54, [13] and its requested total of $325.54, although the discrepancy may be the result of a simple typographical error. Accordingly, we award only $323.54 to ParEn.