Pritt et al v. John Crane, Inc.

United 	States 	District 	Court
District 	of Massachusetts
Ruth A. 	Pritt,
Plaintiff,
v.
John Crane, 	Inc.,
Defendant.
GORTON, 	J.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil 	Action No.
20-12270-NMG
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	Motion of 	plaintiff 	Ruth A. 	Pritt
("plaintiff" 	or 	"Pritt") 	to 	Review 	Costs 	Taxed 	(Docket 	No. 	415)
claiming 	that 	defendant 	included 	costs 	for 	services 	not
essential 	to 	the 	litigation. 	Because 	the 	motion was 	filed 	late
and without 	good 	cause, 	it 	will 	be 	denied.
I. 	Background
In May, 	2024, 	a 	jury 	found 	defendant 	John 	Crane 	Inc.
("defendant" 	or 	"JCI") 	not 	liable 	for 	injuries 	suffered by
plaintiff's 	decedent 	husband. 	Pursuant 	to 	Fed.R.Civ.P. 	54(d) (1)
and 	28 	U.S.C. 	§1920, 	JCI 	submitted a 	bill 	of 	costs 	on 	July 	26,
2024, 	requesting 	the 	Court 	tax 	plaintiff 	$45,239.74 	for 	costs
incurred 	in 	connection with 	the 	litigation.
On June 	17, 	2025, 	almost 	one 	year 	later, 	the 	Court 	allowed
the 	unopposed 	bill 	of 	costs. 	Seven days 	after 	entry of 	the
-1-
Case 1:20-cv-12270-NMG Document 416 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 5

Order, 	plaintiff 	filed 	the 	pending mot i on 	requesting 	the 	taxed
costs 	be 	limited. 	JCI 	opposes 	the 	motion 	as 	untimely 	and on 	its
merits.
II. 	Discussion
A. Standard of 	Review
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	54 ( d) (1) 	states 	that:
[u]nless 	a 	federal 	statute, 	these 	rules, 	or a
court 	order 	provides 	otherwise , 	costs 	- 	other
than 	attorney's 	fees 	- 	should 	be 	allowed 	to
the 	prevailing party. 	. 	The 	clerk may 	tax
costs 	on 	14 	days' 	notice. 	On 	motion 	served
within 	the 	next 	7 	days, 	the 	court 	may 	review
the 	clerk's 	action.
The 	rule 	is 	read 	alongside 	28 	U.S.C. 	§1920, 	which 	enumerates
what 	costs 	are 	taxable, 	requires 	that 	the 	requesting 	party 	file
a 	bill 	of 	costs 	and 	permits 	either 	the 	judge 	or 	clerk 	to 	tax 	the
costs . 	Trs. 	of 	Bos . 	Univ . 	v . 	Everlight 	Elecs. 	Co . , 	392 	F . 	Supp.
3d 	120, 	134 	(D. 	Mass. 	2019). 	If 	the 	clerk 	taxes 	costs, 	the
Court 	may 	review 	the 	clerk's 	action pursuant 	to 	Rule 	54(d) (1).
See 	Hi llman v . 	Be r ks hi re 	Med . 	Ctr., 	I nc . , 	876 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 122,
125 	n.1 	(D. 	Mass. 	2012).
There 	is 	a 	presumption 	in 	favor 	of 	awarding 	costs 	to 	the
prevailing party, 	B. 	Fernandez 	& HNOS, 	Inc. 	v . 	Kellogg 	USA,
Inc., 	516 	F.3d 18, 	28 	(1st 	Cir. 	2008), 	and 	the 	district 	court
maintains 	broad 	discretion 	over 	the 	award of 	such 	costs,
Everlight, 	392 	F. 	Supp. 	3d at 	134. 	Allowed 	costs 	are 	included
in 	the 	judgment 	or 	decree. 	§1920.
-2 -
Case 1:20-cv-12270-NMG Document 416 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 5

B. Motion 	to 	Review Costs 	taxed
i. 	Untimeliness
Federal 	courts 	are 	in 	disagreement 	as 	to 	the 	procedural
mandate 	of 	Rule 	54(d) (1). 	Some 	courts 	interpret 	the 	rule 	to 	bar
court 	action 	until 	after 	the 	clerk 	determines 	what 	costs 	will 	be
taxed. 	See, 	e.g., 	EDT 	Prods., 	Inc. 	v. 	Lexmark 	Int'l, 	Inc., 	405
F.3d 	415, 	417 	(6th 	Cir. 	2005). 	Others 	interpret 	the 	rule 	as
permitting 	either 	the 	Court 	or 	the 	Clerk 	to 	tax 	costs 	outright.
Id. 	The 	latter 	interpretation 	reads 	Rule 	54(d) (1) 	in
conjunction with 	§1920 	to 	support 	the 	rationale. 	McKenna 	v. 	City
of 	Philadelphia, 	582 	F.3d 	447, 	454 	n.6 	(3d Cir. 	2009).
The 	First 	Circuit 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	("the 	First 	Circuit")
requires 	that 	Rule 	54(d) (1) 	and 	§1920 	be 	read 	in 	tandem, 	In 	re
Two 	Appeals 	Arising 	Out 	of 	San Juan Dupont 	Plaza 	Hotel 	Fire
Litig., 	994 	F.2d 	956, 	962 	(1st 	Cir. 	1993), 	and 	therefore 	allows
either 	judge 	or 	clerk 	to 	tax 	costs, 	see 	Everlight, 	392 	F. 	Supp.
3d at 	134. 	Court 	review under 	Rule 	54(d) (1) 	applies 	only 	if 	a
party 	is 	seeking 	to 	challenge 	the 	clerk's 	decision 	to 	tax 	costs.
See 	Hillman, 	876 	F. 	Supp. 	2d at 	125 	n.1.
Notwithstanding 	that 	interpretation, 	courts 	in 	the 	First
Circuit 	diverge 	with 	respect 	to 	how and when 	a 	losing 	party may
oppose 	a 	prevailing 	party's 	bill 	of 	costs. 	This 	session has
required 	that 	oppositions 	be 	made 	through 	a 	motion 	to 	disallow
costs 	filed 	within 	10 	days 	of 	the 	bill 	of 	costs. 	Caruso 	v. 	Delta
-3-
Case 1:20-cv-12270-NMG Document 416 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 5

Air 	Lines, 	Inc., 	616 	F. 	Supp. 	3d 	132, 	135 	n . 1 	(D. 	Mass. 	2022).
Other 	sessions 	have 	required 	the 	losing 	party 	to 	treat 	the 	bill
of 	costs 	as 	if 	it 	were 	a 	motion 	to 	which an 	opposition may be
filed 	within 	14 	days 	pursuant 	to 	Local 	Rule 	7.l(b) (1). 	See,
~' 	Hillman, 	876 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at 	125 .
Plaintiff's 	motion 	is 	untimely under 	either 	standard.
Pritt 	relies 	on precedent 	outside 	of 	the 	First 	Circuit 	for 	the
proposition 	that 	when 	the 	Court 	allowed 	JCI's 	bill 	of 	costs 	it
initiated 	the 	seven-day 	period under 	Rule 	54(d) (1) 	for 	plaintiff
to 	file 	a 	motion 	to 	review 	costs 	taxed. 	That 	is 	not 	the
practice 	of 	this 	Court. 	In 	the 	First 	Circuit, 	any 	objection 	to
the 	bill 	of 	costs 	must 	be 	submitted within 	10 	or 	14 	days 	of 	its
filing. 	Plaintiff's 	motion was 	filed 	almost 	one 	year 	after 	the
bill 	of 	costs 	was 	filed 	and 	therefore, 	regardless 	of 	which
procedural 	deadline 	is 	applied, 	is 	untimely.
ii. 	Excusable 	Neglect
A Court 	may, 	for 	good 	cause, 	allow an 	untimely motion on a
showing 	of 	excusable 	neglect. 	Fed.R.Civ.P . 	6(b) (1) (B).
Excusable 	neglect 	is 	a 	flexible 	standard but 	it 	generally does
not 	excuse 	counsel's 	inattention, 	carelessness 	or 	failure 	to
follow 	procedural 	rules. 	Dimmitt 	v. 	Ockenfels, 	407 	F.3d 	21, 	24
(1st 	Cir. 	2005).
The 	Court 	is 	unpersuaded by plaintiff's 	suggestion 	that 	her
untimely 	filing 	should be 	allowed 	for 	excusable 	neglect 	because
-4-
Case 1:20-cv-12270-NMG Document 416 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 5

..
of 	her 	counsels' 	good 	faith 	but 	mistaken belief 	that 	plaintiff ' s
opposition 	to 	the 	bill 	of 	costs 	was 	not 	due 	until 	after 	the
Clerk 	acted. 	Plaintiff's 	misunderstanding 	of 	procedural 	rules
does 	not 	excuse 	her 	failure 	to 	file , 	especially 	considering 	the
costs 	and 	delay 	imposed upon 	defendant .
iii. 	Merits
Because 	the 	motion 	is 	found 	to 	be 	untimely, 	the 	Court
dec l ines 	to 	consider 	its 	merits.
ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons, 	the 	Motion 	to 	Review 	Costs 	Taxed
(Docket 	No. 	411) 	is 	DENIED .
So 	ordered.
Nathaniel 	M. 	dbr ton
Senior United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated: 	January /3 , 	2026
-5-
Case 1:20-cv-12270-NMG Document 416 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 5