Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 21.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 22, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 296 Words, 1,842 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9104/138.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 21.5 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cv-00327-JCH

Document 138

Filed 11/23/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HENRY KORSZUN, ET AL Plaintiffs v. PUBLIC TECHNOLOGIES MULTIMEDIA, INC., ET AL Defendants : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-00-cv-327 (JCH) NOVEMBER 22, 2005

RULING RE: BILL OF COSTS In this action, the defendants filed a Bill of Costs. The court denies in part the Bill of Costs, without prejudice to resubmission. With respect to the following items, the denial is based upon the fact that there is no supporting documentation provided to evidence the costs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Fees for witnesses' subsistence; Fees for witnesses; Fees of the clerk; Fees for court reporters; and Costs of exemplification and copies of papers.

With respect to the fees for witnesses' travel costs, for which there was supporting documentation provided, it was provided in Canadian dollars. Defendants must submit the appropriate conversion and the basis for it in order to permit the clerk to enter this cost. With respect to the fees for service of subpoenas, there is no documentation regarding the number of miles or mileage breakdown. However, more fatal to this cost is the fact that defendants apparently never deposed these witnesses.

Case 3:00-cv-00327-JCH

Document 138

Filed 11/23/2005

Page 2 of 2

The court allows, absent objection, the cost of patent file wrapper and prior art patents of $278. The denial in part of this Bill of Costs is without prejudice to resubmission. However, the objections of the plaintiffs to the denied items are preserved if those items are resubmitted. The plaintiff is, of course, free to file a further objection arguing additional points. SO ORDERED. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 22nd day of November, 2005.

/s/ Janet C. Hall Janet C. Hall United States District Judge

-2-