Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> Appellant' s argument again fails to acknowledge that <br /> despite what "actual" costs Appellant may have incurred, recovery <br /> of damages under HRS § 101-27 is subject to a reasonableness <br /> requirement . The County' s argument that "11, 845 pages . . . is a <br /> lot of sheets of paper" is essentially an argument that the <br /> volume seems unreasonable. While Appellant' s argument that the <br /> record in this case was voluminous is well taken, this court is <br /> aware that the record was available in electronic format . <br /> Although the County' s objection to the copying costs is vague, in <br /> response to that argument, Appellant did not identify which costs <br /> were associated solely with "producing necessary copies of briefs <br /> and appendices, " nor did it make any argument as to why any <br /> additional photocopying costs requested are reasonable . <br /> Considering the foregoing circumstances, Appellant' s photocopying <br /> costs are denied. ' <br /> E . <br /> Finally, the County objects to Appellant' s recovery of <br /> any attorneys' fees for "unsuccessful claims . " The County <br /> asserts that under Schefke v. Reliable Collection AcrencV, Ltd. , <br /> 96 Hawaii 408 , 445, 32 P. 3d 52, 89 (2001) , "time spent on <br /> unsuccessful claims unrelated to [Appellant' s] successful claims <br /> could not be part of any award of 'reasonable attorney' s fees <br /> 6 Therefore, this court has left undecided the question of whether <br /> photocopying costs in addition to those allowed under HRAP Rule 39 might be <br /> allowed under HRS § 101-27 either as costs or "other reasonable expenses" in a <br /> case where the movant showed that those costs were reasonable. <br /> 25 <br />