Rule 59.New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

Rule 59(a)(1) sets the grounds for a new trial by looking backward at prior practice: after a jury trial, the court may grant a new trial for any reason a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court or District of Columbia courts; after a nonjury trial, it may do so for any reason a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in those same courts. Rule 59(a)(2) adds options available after a nonjury trial specifically — the court can open a judgment already entered, take additional testimony, amend or make new findings of fact and conclusions of law, and direct entry of a new judgment.

Timing runs on a single 28-day clock in both directions. Rule 59(b) requires a motion for a new trial to be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment, and Rule 59(e) sets the identical 28-day deadline for a motion to alter or amend the judgment. When a new trial motion rests on affidavits, Rule 59(c) requires those affidavits to be filed with the motion, gives the opposing party 14 days after being served to file opposing affidavits, and lets the court permit reply affidavits.

Rule 59(d) lets the court act without waiting for a motion: within that same 28 days after entry of judgment, the court may order a new trial on its own initiative for any reason that would justify granting one on a party's motion. It can also grant a timely motion for a new trial on a ground the motion itself did not raise, but only after giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard — and either way, the court must specify its reasons in the order.

The official Comment explains why the deadline is 28 days rather than the shorter period once used. Because Rule 6(b) bars extending this type of deadline, the drafters lengthened it — following the same change made to the federal rule — to give parties realistic time to prepare a sound post-judgment motion, while keeping appeal deadlines calculable and certain.