Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> D. <br /> The County' s fourth objection is that Appellant' s <br /> requests for "photocopying costs in the total amount of <br /> $2, 369 . 00" at 20 cents per page "are excessive" and "seemingly <br /> out of line for this appeal . " The County notes that " [HRAP Rule <br /> 39 (c) (4 ) ] allows recovery for `the cost of printing or otherwise <br /> producing necessary copies of briefs and appendices, "' and that <br /> " [i] t is doubtful that the 11, 845 pages or 6, 802 pages [claimed <br /> by Appellant] would be the cost of printing the necessary copies <br /> of briefs and appendices . " Therefore, the County argues that, <br /> " [b] ecause [Appellant] has failed to establish the reasonableness <br /> of the appropriate taxable costs for photocopying costs, <br /> [Appellant' s] request for such costs should be denied. " <br /> Appellant maintains in response that it should be <br /> reimbursed for copying costs in order to "make [Appellant] <br /> whole . " Appellant asserts that " `a lot of sheets of paper' alone <br /> is not a responsive objection to copying expenses, especially <br /> when considering the consolidated multivolume record in the two <br /> appeals, which covered nearly a decade of litigation in two <br /> circuit court cases with multiple parties" and that " [t] he rule <br /> in [HRAP Rule] 39 limiting a request for costs to copies of <br /> briefs and appendices is not applicable to requests for damages <br /> under [HRS §] 101-27, since the successful landowner is entitled <br /> to all copying costs actually incurred [ . ] " (Emphasis added. ) <br /> 24 <br />