Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge John A. Nordberg Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 5714 DATE 1/26/2011

CASE

TITLE

Donna Tuntevich vs. WH Investment Properties et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [138] is denied. The Court also finds that each party should bear its

own costs. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

 Two issues are before the Court. The first is plaintiff’s motion to reconsider our summary judgment

ruling in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims. Plaintiff has submitted a sixpage motion in which she argues that this Court’s decision should be reconsidered. She then attaches 71

pages of exhibits, which consist of her briefs and affidavit and other material submitted previously with the

briefing on summary judgment.

 In a two-page response brief, defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion is untimely under Rule 59(e)

because it was filed more than 10 days after judgment. On this point, we agree. But even if we were to

consider the motion on the merits, we would deny it because plaintiff only presents the same arguments

raised in her earlier briefs and evidentiary submissions. Generally, a party should not use a motion to

reconsider merely to re-argue old arguments or to present arguments that could have been raised earlier. See

County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 2006); Oto v. Metro. Life. Ins. Co.,

224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000); Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264,

1269 (7th Cir. 1996). If considered as a Rule 60(b) motion, we also find no grounds for granting relief. Such

motions are not allowed for mere errors in the application of law, but only for the specific grounds set out in

the rule, and plaintiff has not offered any such grounds, for example newly discovered evidence, that could fit

within any of the Rule 60(b) exceptions. See Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir.

2006); Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001). For these

reasons, the motion to reconsider is denied. 

 The second issue pending is defendants’ bill of costs. Defendants seek a total of $3701.39, which consists

of $1,426.50 for court reporter fees, $2,219.15 for computerized legal research, and $55.74 in fees for copies. 

 The general rule is that the prevailing party is entitled to receive costs under Rule 54(d)(1). However,

courts have wide discretion in determining what costs to award. Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411

F.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005). If a court concludes that each party should bear its own costs, it must explain

03C5714 Donna Tuntevich vs. WH Investment Properties et al. Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

its reasons.

 Here, we find that each side should bear its own costs. For one thing, a large part of the costs consist of

computerized legal research, which defendants themselves acknowledge is an item that not all courts agree

should be recoverable. More significantly, plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has represented to this Court

that she is in difficult financial circumstances. She states that she is over 70, living on social security with no

other potential for future earnings. (Docket # 141 at p. 5.) In light of these facts, we find that no costs should

be awarded. 

03C5714 Donna Tuntevich vs. WH Investment Properties et al. Page 2 of 2