Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> request attorneys' fees for preparing the Request in its original <br /> Request, nor did it provide supporting documentation for those <br /> fees . Moreover, upon filing its court-ordered Response and <br /> requesting fees for preparing that Response, Appellant again did <br /> not provide any supporting documentation as required by HRAP Rule <br /> 39 (d) (1) . Although Appellant has now filed the requisite <br /> itemized account of attorneys' fees in its Errata, Appellant does <br /> not provide this court with any rationale as to why it should be <br /> permitted to essentially raise new substantive arguments for the <br /> first time in an Errata. See Taomae v. Lingle, 110 Hawaii 327, <br /> 333, 132 P. 3d 1238, 1244 (2006) ("Plaintiffs' arguments that <br /> attorneys' fees should be awarded pursuant to (1) HRS § 602-5 (7) , <br /> (2) this court' s inherent equitable powers, and (3) the private <br /> attorney general doctrine, were raised for the first time in <br /> their reply memorandum [, and, accordingly, we deny the request <br /> for fees on such grounds . ") . Furthermore, waiting until the <br /> Errata to provide the appropriate support leaves the County <br /> without an opportunity to make specific objections to those <br /> items . Therefore, Appellant' s request for attorneys' fees for <br /> preparation of the Request and the subsequent Response is denied. <br /> Additionally, Appellant has not provided an itemized and verified <br /> bill for the $185 . 26 in costs expended in preparing the Request <br /> and the Response, and, therefore, Appellant is denied recovery <br /> for the costs it incurred in preparing the Request and the <br /> Response . <br /> 33 <br />