 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ho v. Nishijima12/30/2003
se "fees [were] dependant on whether they were present at trial." Turner, 59 Haw. at 331, 582 P.2d at 718. Although these witnesses did not testify at trial, the record does not reveal whether or not these witnesses "attended" trial. Therefore, I would vacate that part of the court's June 3, 1998 order pertaining to these fees and remand that matter to the court to determine whether these witnesses, who did not testify, had actually "attended" the trial.
2.
Plaintiffs contend that the court had no basis to find that $3,891.24 in duplication and copying charges were reasonably incurred by Defendant. HRS § 607-9 allows for the award of "copying costs." Defendant asserts that copying costs of $1,230.19 (shown on Page 9) include the cost of copying records sent to Defendant's experts to review and trial exhibits. The other copying costs (shown on page 10) reflect the copying costs of pleadings served on counsel, correspondence (to client, other counsel, and experts, etc.), records for Defendant's experts to review, exhibits for court-annexed arbitration, and trial exhibits. In light of the authorization in HRS § 607-9, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in awarding copying costs to Defendant.
3.
Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that taxing $11,562.98 in deposition costs was an abuse of discretion. Citing Mist, 69 Haw. at 268, 738 P.2d at 1172, Plaintiffs assert that while expenses for original copies of deposition transcripts are allowed under HRS § 607-9, the court has held that such expenses must be reasonable. The court in Mist held that the reasonablenes test should be whether the depositions were "necessarily obtained for use in the case." Id.
Plaintiffs object to the cost of records depositions from insurers, medical providers, medical entities, Defendant's IME doctors and Defendant's biomechanical expert. Plaintiffs argue that these were witnesses who never testified and whose records were never offered into evidence or relied upon by any witness at trial. In response, however, Defendant states that "the oral depositions, particularly those of Mr. Ho's medical providers, were necessary for Defendant to evaluate the various medical issues, including (1) the nature and extent of Mr. Ho's claimed injuries; (2) whether certain injuries were caused or aggravated by the subject accident; and (3) apportionment issues." Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in awarding the costs of such oral and record depositions.
VIII.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the August 20, 1998 judgment, except I would vacate and remand with respect to items 14-20 of the June 3, 1998 order pertaining to costs.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|