Court Opinion

ID: 9536811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:07:28.283762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:23.153703
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
with whom, MATTHEWS, Justice, joins dissenting in part.
I dissent from the majority’s holding that Alaska Administrative Rule 7(c) limits reimbursement of a prevailing public interest litigant’s expert witness costs to $50.00 per hour for time spent testifying.1 Plaintiffs assert that they incurred $134,103.06 in expert witness fees and associated costs, and that the superior court awarded only $4,270.93 in costs for expert witnesses.
In my view, resolution of this issue is controlled by two prior decisions of this court. In Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131, 1136 (Alaska 1974), we concluded that “it is an abuse of discretion to award attorneys’ fees against a losing party who has in good faith raised a question of genuine public interest before the courts.”2 Building on Gilbert, we subsequently held that a prevailing public interest litigant is entitled to an award of full attorney’s fees. Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986, 991 (Alaska 1977). In part, we said:
The Gilbert public interest exception to Rule 82 is designed to encourage plaintiffs to bring issues of public interest to the courts. In holding that as a matter of sound policy attorney’s fees should not be assessed against public interest plaintiffs, we relied in Gilbert on the appellant’s argument “that awarding fees in this type of controversy will deter citizens from litigating questions of general public concern for fear of incurring the expense of the other party’s attorney’s fees.” Adoption of the City’s contention that public interest plaintiffs should not be awarded attorney’s fees would be inconsistent with the above stated policy.
Id. at 990 (footnote omitted). More particularly, we noted that the basic rationale of the Gilbert public interest litigant exception to the Civil Rule 82 partial award of attorney’s fees is “to encourage plaintiffs to raise issues of public interest by removing the awesome financial burden of such a suit.” Id.
In my view these same considerations mandate adoption of a prevailing public interest litigant exception to the partial award of costs of expert witnesses called for in Administrative Rule 7(c).3 Failure to fully reimburse the reasonable costs of necessary expert witnesses employed by prevailing public interest litigants creates an unwarranted barrier to litigation of important issues of public interest. I would therefore remand this case to the superior court for the purpose of awarding such costs.

.Alaska Administrative Rule 7(c) provides:
Recovery of costs for a witness called to testify as an expert is limited to the time when the expert is employed and testifying and shall not exceed $50.00 per hour, except as otherwise provided in these rules. A party may not recover costs for more than three expert witnesses as to the same issue in any given case, unless the judge permits recovery for an additional number of expert witnesses.

. Accord Girves v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 536 P.2d 1221, 1227 (Alaska 1975).

. We have held that costs may not be assessed against a losing public interest litigant. McCormick v. Smith, 799 P.2d 287, 289 (Alaska 1990).