# PRESERVATION PLAN — *Dane* (Judgment entered Friday, May 1, 2026)

## 0. Master calendar (all counts exclude May 1; e-file by 11:59 p.m. court time)

| # | Task | Trigger | Raw count | Filing deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Local motion to reconsider evidentiary ruling (10 days) | May 1 | May 11 | **Mon., May 11, 2026** — already used; no tolling value |
| 2 | **Attorney-fee motion (14 days)** | May 1 | May 15 | **Fri., May 15, 2026** |
| 3 | **Rule-1 motion to alter/amend + alternative new trial (28 days)** | May 1 | May 29 | **Fri., May 29, 2026** (non-extendable) |
| 4 | **Protective notice of appeal (30 days, untolled)** | May 1 | May 31 (Sun.) | **Mon., June 1, 2026** |
| 5 | Expected order on rule-1 motion | — | — | Fri., July 10, 2026 |
| 6 | **Operative notice of appeal (new 30 days)** | July 10 | Aug. 9 (Sun.) | **Mon., Aug. 10, 2026** |
| 7 | Notice of appeal from any adverse fee order | Entry of fee order | +30 days | Separate 30-day clock |

Verify each date against the clerk's published 2026 holiday calendar before relying on it.

---

## 1. Attorney-fee motion — due Friday, May 15, 2026

Rule 3 runs 14 days from entry; no statute or order set a different date, so the default governs. **The fee motion cannot wait for the July 10 merits ruling.** Because a fee motion does not toll the appeal clock (rule 3), there is no procedural benefit to delay and a total forfeiture risk in delay.

Practical handling: file the motion by May 15 with the lodestar summary and, if billing records are incomplete, request leave to supplement the amount later. Filing a timely motion that reserves supplementation preserves the claim; filing nothing does not.

**Consequence of missing May 15:** the $185,000 fee claim is forfeited. The merits judgment and the appeal are unaffected — the loss is the fees themselves, recoverable only if the court grants relief for excusable neglect, which is discretionary and not guaranteed.

---

## 2. Rule-1 motion — due Friday, May 29, 2026 (hard deadline)

**What it must request, expressly and in the substance of the motion:**

1. **Alteration/amendment of the judgment** to add the **$42,000 prejudgment interest** the court orally ruled recoverable — cite the oral ruling, the transcript page, and the statutory/contractual interest basis, and attach a proposed amended judgment.
2. **In the alternative, a new trial** based on the exclusion of the witness — state the grounds: the substance of the excluded testimony, its materiality, the legal error in exclusion, and prejudice.

Both requests are relief available under rule 1, so the motion is a genuine rule-1 motion and will toll. Under rule 8, the label is not enough — the requested relief and grounds must appear on the face of the motion. Do not caption it as a "motion to reconsider."

**Timing advice:** file by **Wednesday, May 20**, not May 29. The 28-day limit is non-extendable, and a Friday-night e-filing failure on May 29 is unrecoverable.

**Consequence of missing May 29:**
- The $42,000 interest cannot be added by post-trial motion; the judgment stands at $610,000.
- No tolling occurs, so the **only** appeal deadline is **June 1, 2026** — three days later.
- The new-trial ground is lost as trial-court relief; the evidentiary issue survives only as a direct-appeal assignment of error, and only if a timely notice of appeal is filed.

---

## 3. Original notice-of-appeal deadline (no tolling) — Monday, June 1, 2026

Thirty days from May 1 is Sunday, May 31; rule 6 moves it to Monday, June 1, 2026.

**Consequence of missing this date if nothing tolls:** total loss of appellate review. The deadline is jurisdictional in effect — the evidentiary ruling, the omitted interest, and every other issue become unreviewable, and the $610,000 judgment is final as entered.

---

## 4. The May 8 "Motion to Reconsider Evidentiary Ruling" tolls **nothing**

- **Substance test fails.** It asks only that the judge revisit an interlocutory evidentiary ruling. It does not seek alteration or amendment of the judgment or a new trial. Under rule 8, a mislabeled or narrowly drawn document tolls only if its substance requests rule-1 relief; this one does not.
- **Rule 4 is explicit** that a local reconsideration motion does not alter the judgment and does not toll the appeal period.
- **Timeliness is irrelevant.** It was filed within 28 days, so it *could* have tolled had it asked for rule-1 relief — but it did not, so the date is beside the point.

**Bottom line for the client:** as of today the appeal clock is still running from May 1 and expires **June 1, 2026**. The May 8 filing bought no time. Nothing about it should be relied on; do not attempt to "convert" or "amend" it after May 29 — an amendment adding rule-1 relief filed after day 28 is itself untimely.

---

## 5. New notice-of-appeal deadline if the rule-1 motion is denied July 10, 2026 — Monday, August 10, 2026

Rule 2 starts a fresh 30-day period on entry of the order disposing of the last timely rule-1 motion. Counting from July 10 (excluded): July 11–31 = 21 days; 9 more days = **Sunday, August 9, 2026**, which moves under rule 6 to **Monday, August 10, 2026**.

Two cautions:
- The clock runs from **entry** of the order, not from the July 10 hearing or oral ruling. If the written order is entered later than July 10, recount from the entry date — and if it is entered earlier, recount from that earlier date. Docket-monitor daily from July 6 onward.
- If the court disposes of the interest request and the new-trial request in separate orders, the 30 days run from the **later** entry ("the last timely rule-1 motion").

**Consequence of missing August 10:** the appeal is untimely and the judgment — without the $42,000 — is final. Both the interest omission and the witness exclusion are unreviewable.

---

## 6. Before or after disposition? **Do both.**

- **File a protective notice of appeal by Monday, June 1, 2026.** Rationale: the entire August 10 date depends on the planned rule-1 motion being both timely and substantively sufficient. If the court later holds the motion non-tolling (defective grounds, no rule-1 relief actually requested, e-filing timestamp problem), the only surviving deadline is June 1 — and by July it will be long gone. Under rule 5, a premature notice is not void; it becomes effective on disposition. The downside is essentially zero.
- **File a second, operative notice of appeal after entry of the disposition order, by Monday, August 10, 2026.** Rule 5 itself says the later notice is safer. This one should designate the judgment of May 1, 2026 *as amended (if amended)*, and the order of July 10, 2026 denying the rule-1 motion.
- **Do not treat the protective notice as a substitute** for the post-July-10 notice, and do not let the protective notice divert attention from the May 29 rule-1 deadline.

---

## 7. Consequence-of-default summary

| Missed deadline | Exact consequence |
|---|---|
| May 15 — fee motion | $185,000 fee claim forfeited; merits appeal unaffected |
| May 29 — rule-1 motion | No tolling; $42,000 interest not addable post-trial; new-trial relief lost; appeal due June 1 |
| June 1 — untolled notice | If no valid rule-1 motion exists, all appellate rights lost |
| July 10 (docket watch) | Miscount of the new 30 days; risk of untimely notice |
| Aug. 10 — post-disposition notice | Appeal untimely; interest and evidentiary issues unreviewable |
| 30 days from fee order | Fee ruling unreviewable |

## 8. Immediate action items

1. Calendar all seven dates with 7-, 3-, and 1-day reminders; confirm clerk holidays.
2. Draft and file the fee motion (with reservation to supplement) by **May 15**.
3. Draft and file the rule-1 motion — interest **plus** alternative new trial, with grounds — target **May 20**, absolute **May 29**.
4. File the protective notice of appeal by **June 1**.
5. Withdraw or let the May 8 reconsideration motion be subsumed into the rule-1 motion; do not rely on it for any deadline.
6. Docket-watch July 6–10; on entry, recount 30 days and file the operative notice by **August 10**.
7. Preserve the excluded-witness record now: proffer, transcript cites, and any offer of proof, so the appellate record supports the new-trial ground and the evidentiary assignment of error.