Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> Mark M. Murakami 10 . 0 230 2, 300 . 00 <br /> Matthew T . Evans 3 . 5 150 525 . 00 <br /> TOTAL 6, 242 . 00 <br /> In response to Appellant' s request for such fees and <br /> costs, the County urges that the "additional request for <br /> attorneys' fees and costs should be denied. " As the County <br /> correctly points out, HRAP Rule 39 (d) (1) requires that " [a] party <br /> who desires an award of attorney' s fees and costs shall request <br /> them by submitting an itemized and verified bill of fees and <br /> costs, together with a statement of authority for each category <br /> of items and, where appropriate, copies of invoices, bills, <br /> vouchers, and receipts . " According to the County, it "did not <br /> receive any itemized and verified bill of fees and costs for <br /> [Appellant' s] request for attorneys' fees and costs for filing <br /> its [Request and] Responses" and " [w] ithout the itemized and <br /> verified bill of fees and costs, the County is unable to <br /> reasonably provide objections to [Appellant' s] additional <br /> requests for [s] tatutory [d] amages . " <br /> Although it appears that the fees and costs incurred in <br /> filing the Request and the subsequent Response had not been <br /> invoiced at the time the Response was filed, Appellant has <br /> included an itemized bill, at least for attorneys' fees, in its <br /> Errata. Exhibit B to the Errata appears to include time spent on <br /> the Request, whereas, Exhibit C includes the time expended on the <br /> court-ordered Response . However, Appellant did not expressly <br /> 32 <br />