Opinion ID: 167974
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of the opportunity to reply

Text: 57 McInnis argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her the opportunity to reply in support of her motion for attorneys' fees. The district court's local rules provide that [t]he moving party may file a reply within 15 days after the filing date of the response, or such lesser or greater time as the court may allow. D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 7.1(C). We review a district court's application of its local rules for abuse of discretion. See Hernandez v. George, 793 F.2d 264, 268 (10th Cir.1986). 58 Our review of the district court docket indicates the following sequence of events: McInnis filed her motion for attorneys' fees and expert witness fees on July 23, 2004. Fairfield's response was filed on August 5. Under the local rules, then, McInnis had until August 20 to file a reply. See D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 7.1(C). On August 10, McInnis filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply. On August 12, the district court denied McInnis's motion for an extension in an order that stated, without further explanation: FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to reply regarding her Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expert Witness Fees is denied. Then, on August 19, a day before her reply was due under the general local rule time period, the court entered its award of attorneys' fees. 59 Without any explanation for its order, denying McInnis the opportunity to reply even though she was expressly authorized to do so under the district court's local rules was an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment. Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion, and we remand with instructions to allow McInnis the opportunity to reply. 60