Kandt v. Taser Int'l, Inc.

Full title: Jeff Kandt, Plaintiff, v. Taser International, Inc., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Sep 13, 2012

5:09-CV-0507 (NPM-ATB) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2012)

Opinion

5:09-CV-0507 (NPM-ATB)

09-13-2012

Jeff Kandt, Plaintiff, v. Taser International, Inc., Defendant.

Attorneys for Plaintiff: WILLIAMS & RUDDEROW, PLLC OF COUNSEL: S. ROBERT WILLIAMS, ESQ. MICHELLE ELLSWORTH RUDDEROW, ESQ. BURKE & BURKE LAW FIRM PATRICK J. BURKE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant: RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP CHRISTOPHER RENZULLI, ESQ. JOHN RENZULLI, ESQ. JOHN V. TAIT, ESQ. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. HOLLY L. GIBEAUT, ESQ. MICHAEL A. BRAVE, ESQ.

Neal P. McCurn

APPEARANCES:

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

WILLIAMS & RUDDEROW, PLLC

OF COUNSEL:

S. ROBERT WILLIAMS, ESQ.

MICHELLE ELLSWORTH

RUDDEROW, ESQ.

BURKE & BURKE LAW FIRM

PATRICK J. BURKE, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant:

RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP

CHRISTOPHER RENZULLI, ESQ.

JOHN RENZULLI, ESQ.

JOHN V. TAIT, ESQ.

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

HOLLY L. GIBEAUT, ESQ.

MICHAEL A. BRAVE, ESQ.
Neal P. McCurn, Senior District Judge

SUMMARY ORDER

Presently before the court is a motion by Plaintiff, Jeff Kandt ("Kandt"), to review/modify the Bill of Costs submitted by defendant, Taser International, Inc. ("Taser").¹ See Dkt. No. 99. Taser opposes Kandt's motion.

1 Although a notice of appeal has been filed in this case, the court retains jurisdiction over collateral matters such as the pending motion. See Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 225 (2d Cir. 2004).

As the prevailing party, Taser submitted its application for costs pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54.1 of this court's Local Rules, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821(b), 1920 and 1923. Kandt challenges the following of Taser's costs as "excessive or unmerited:" (1) the costs associated with pro hac vice admission for Holly Gibeaut; (2) costs for videotaping of certain witnesses; (3) costs for expediting certain transcripts; and (4) costs for in-house printing and duplicating of documents. See Decl. of Michelle Ellsworth Rudderow, Aug. 24, 2012, Dkt. No. 99-1. Kandt further requests that Taser's costs be denied in their entirety because he is permanently disabled and "has no income other than his state-provided retirement income." Id., ¶ 27.

For the reasons set forth in Taser's memorandum of law in opposition to Kandt's motion, see Dkt. No. 100, Kandt's motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 13, 2012

Syracuse, New York

______________________

Neal P. McCurn

Senior U.S. District Judge