Opinion
00 C 369.
February 5, 2003
OPINION
On November 1, 2002, I determined that Stive was entitled to attorney's fees and ordered that he submit a detailed petition for fees. On November 18, 2002, Stive filed his petition. On January 17, 2003, the Government filed its response to his petition. In its "response," however, the Government raised the new argument that Illinois law precluded my awarding of fees. In essence, the Government moved to reconsider my November 1 order using, as its vehicle, its response to Stive's petition. Stive now moves to strike the Government's response as untimely.
Because a portion of the Government' response is a motion for reconsideration, I will treat that portion as such. Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Gorence v. Eagle Food Centers, NO. 93 C 4862, 1999 WL 199619, (N.D.Ill. Apr 1, 1999). As a general rule, Rule 59(e) motions must "be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Therefore, the portion of the Government's January 17 response moving to reconsider my November 1 order is untimely under Rule 59(e) and is thus stricken. Although the Government is correct that I allowed it until January 21, 2003 to file its response to Stive's petition, this deadline did not free them from the obligation to file a motion for reconsideration within 10 days after entry of the order. However, the portion of the Government's response that actually responds to Stive's petition is timely filed pursuant to my order and is thus not stricken. Stive now has until February 12 to file his reply to the portion of the Government's response which is not stricken by this order, which are Sections II. and III.
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.