Opinion ID: 2630674
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of particular costs[12]

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.
The State contends that the filing fees requested by ParEn are duplicative and/or that ParEn did not disclose the purpose for paying the filing fees and when the filing fees were paid. Nor, argues the State, does ParEn prove which court charged the fee(s) or how the fee relates to this appeal. Inasmuch as appeals by non-indigent parties generally require prepayment of fees, the why, when, and to whom are self-evident as to $225.00 of the $327.36 requested. See HRAP Rule 45(e)(5) (Supreme Court filing fee of $100.00); HRS §§ 607-5(c)(23) (Supp.2004) (circuit court fee of $100.00 upon filing of notice of appeal), 607-5.7 (Supp.2001) ($25.00 surcharge for indigent legal services); HRAP Rule 3(a), (f) (consequences of failure to pay, including dismissal of appeal). Moreover, the State's suggestion that ParEn has attempted to double-dip by requesting the same $225.00 in the circuit court is less than candid, and unavailing: through standard and common procedure, the Appellees would have been charged a different $225.00 by the circuit court for their initial complaint against HDCC, see HRS §§ 607-5(b)(1) (Supp.2004) (filing fee), 607-5.7, supra (surcharge), and scrutiny of the State's own exhibit reveals this to be the case (receipts for COMP/PAREN, INC VS HI DREDGING CONST CO ($200.00) and SRCHG/PAREN, INC. VS HI DREDGING CONSTRN ($25.00)). Nonetheless, neither ParEn's counsel's declaration nor its copious exhibits document the expenditure of the remaining $102.36. Consequently, we deny ParEn $102.36 of the requested $327.36.
ParEn requests $2,159.66 for [p]rinting/copying of briefs/appendices (# of pages @ .10-.15/page). The State asserts that the number of pages ParEn claims to have printed is excessive, that fifteen cents per page is an excessive charge, and that, once again, ParEn duplicated its request to the circuit court. We agree with the State that the number of pages alleged is unreasonable. Assigning a duly broad scope to briefs and appendices as used in HRAP Rule 39(c)(4), see supra note 3, we need not reimburse a prevailing party for filings other than those briefs encompassed by HRAP Rule 28, including the number of copies required by HRAP Appendix A. ParEn's opening brief was 179 pages long, including appendices, the statement of related cases required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(11), and the certificate of service required by HRAP Rule 28(a). ParEn's answering brief (including attachments as described supra ) was 148 pages long. Its reply brief (including attachments) was sixteen pages long. All in all, ParEn filed 343 pages pursuant to HRAP Rule 28. [14] HRAP Appendix A requires the filing of two copies of each brief, and HRAP Rule 28(a) requires service of two copies upon every other party (in this case, HGG and the State). Allowing reimbursement for all six copies plus one for ParEn's own records, see HRAP Appendix A, the total number of pages for which ParEn may obtain reimbursement is still only 7 times 343, or 2401. Inasmuch as ParEn's three briefs were all filed before July 2002, when its per-page price inexplicably decreased from fifteen cents per page to ten cents, we reimburse ParEn for 2401 pages at fifteen cents per page, which equals $360.15. The State does not object to HGG's request for $13.60 in copying costs. Inasmuch as HGG's answering brief was thirty-four pages long and HGG was required to produce seven copies, see supra, we award the full requested amount of $13.60. [15]