rule, but emanates from the inherent power of the court. See A. Hollow Metal Warehouse v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 700 F.Supp. 410, 411-12 (N.D.Ill.1988). Not only is a motion to reconsider an allowable method of reviewing a prior order, it is the most appropriate and advantageous method of seeking relief from an interlocutory order for a party to pursue. The beneficial aspect of distinguishing between the two methods of relief is readily apparent when the strict standard for granting relief under Rule 60(b) is contrasted with the practically unbridled discretion of a district court to reconsider a previous interlocutory order. Compare Greene v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. of America, 764 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir.1985), and United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 604 (3d Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>), with Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. Wiseley, 884
holding that the inherent power of the district court includes the power  to santion attorneys for  violations of court orders or other conduct which interferes with the courts power to manage its calendar and the courtroom   holding that any change to a judgment made by the trial court while it retains plenary jurisdiction will restart the appellate timetable but only a motion seeking a substantive change will extend the appellate deadlines and the trial courts plenary power holding that a plenary suit is required to invoke the district courts supervisory control over the commissioners court recognizing plenary power of district court to alter interlocutory orders recognizing the inherent power of the court to coerce compliance with its orders