Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> none of the entries from the January 24, 2008 bill were included <br /> in the original lodestar, or the amount of attorneys' fees <br /> requested in the original Request . Appellant argues that <br /> therefore, it erroneously "withdrew its request for $2, 280 . 50 <br /> (plus tax) responding to [the] County' s objections about the <br /> January 2008 invoice [ , ] " as "the lodestar in the original request <br /> was date-sorted and the offending entries were not included in <br /> the lodestar. " Consequently, in its Errata, Appellant requests <br /> the total amount requested in the original Request, less a few <br /> erroneous inclusions it claims to have found through an <br /> additional audit . <br /> The lodestar in the original Request was $45, 383 . 50, <br /> whereas, based upon the audit, Appellant has revised that amount <br /> to $44 , 696. 88 in its Errata. The revised amount appears to <br /> include amounts incurred in preparing Appellant' s Request for <br /> fees and costs (which the Request did not) , and to exclude any <br /> fees and costs incurred by Appellant prior to January 15, 2008 . <br /> Therefore, it appears that all entries from the January 24, 2008 <br /> bill objected to by the County are properly excluded from the <br /> revised lodestar amount set forth in Appellant' s Errata . <br /> B. <br /> As to its second point, the County argues that <br /> " [n] either [HRAP Rule 39] , nor HRS § 101-27 specifically allow [s] <br /> for costs associated with legal research searches on-line [ . ] " <br /> The County points out that " [i] n Blornen v. State Farm Fire and <br /> 16 <br />