ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on TIG's objections to Stryker's proposed judgment. (ECF No. 569.) TIG agrees with Stryker's proposed judgment except with respect to the penalty interest cut-off date. TIG contends that the proposed judgment should be amended to reflect that penalty interest terminates upon the entry of final judgment.
This Court did not address the cut-off date for penalty interest in its opinion on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 565.) However, the order stated that penalty interest pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2006(4) would run "until paid in full." (ECF No. 566.) This was clearly a mistake. "`In diversity cases in this Circuit, federal law controls postjudgment interest but state law governs awards of prejudgment interest.'" Estate of Riddle ex rel. Riddle v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. First Heights Bank, FSB, 229 F.3d 528, 542 (6th Cir. 2000)). Stryker undoubtedly recognized that it was a mistake. In its motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages in this case, Stryker only requested prejudgment interest, and argued that penalty interest should run only until the date of entry of judgment. (Pl. Br. 15, ECF No. 556; Pl. Resp. Br. 11, ECF No. 560.) Moreover, when this Court awarded penalty interest in Stryker I, it only awarded such interest until the date of entry of judgment. Stryker v. XL Ins. Am., No. 4:01-CV-157 (W.D. Mich.) (Oct. 7, 2009, Order, ECF No. 1094). Stryker did not challenge that ruling on appeal, and the Sixth Circuit confirmed that state penalty interest would only run until entry of judgment when federal post-judgment interest would begin:
Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., 735 F.3d 349, 361 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)).
TIG has advised that before Stryker submitted its proposed judgment, TIG opposed Stryker's attempt to continue penalty interest beyond the date of the judgment. Stryker's failure to bring this issue immediately to the Court's attention even before it filed its proposed judgment, and its attempt to take advantage of this Court's mistake, is well below the standard of conduct expected of attorneys practicing in this district. Accordingly,