RE:Major tactical change for Puda CaseFinally, plaintiffs were unable to obtain the so-called "smoking gun" document until recently even through the exercise of due diligence. See id. at 88 (quoting Saud v. Bank of New York, 929 F.2d 916,920 (2d Cir. 1991». Accordingly, res judicata does not bar plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint in order to add a claim against Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (ECF No. 282) is GRANTED. This Order does not preclude Macquarie from raising any defenses it wishes to raise. II. TRELLUS'S MOTION FOR AN INDICATIVE RULING Having reviewed the facts proffered by plaintiff in response to the Court's order to show cause, the Court has also revisited its denial (ECF No. 292) of Trellus Management Company LLC's motion for an indicative ruling pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3) (ECF No. 288) regarding its motion to intel'vene (see ECF Nos. 176, 263). Pursuant to Rule 60, the Court may relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding due to "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move" to amend the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). A Rule 60(b)(2) motion may be brought within one year of the entry ofjudgment that the movant is challenging. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). When considering the timeliness of a motion to intervene in the first instance, factors for the Court to consider include: "(a) the length of time the applicant knew or should have known of [its] interest before making the motion; (b) prejudice to existing parties resulting from the applicant's delay; (c) prejudice to [the] applicant if the motion is denied; and (d)