RE:Major tactical change for Puda Case
I am going to except the rest of this as it is deep into the legal precedent weeds...
To obtain relief from a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), a party must demonstrate, inter alia, that "(1) the newly discovered evidence was of facts that existed at the time of trial or other dispositive proceeding, (2) the movant must have been justifiably ignorant of them despite due diligence, [and] (3) the evidence must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome." United States V. IBT, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001). Here, Trellus has proffered the so-called "smoking gun" document, which was produced by Macquarie after it had exited the action and which plaintiff claims gives rise to liability under § 10(b). (See Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to File Consolidated Am. Compl. 1-4, ECF No. 283; Trellus's Mem. of L. in Supp_ of Mot. for Indicative Ruling 25, ECF No. 289.) As previously stated, plaintiffs were unable to obtain the document "despite due diligence," IBT, 247 F.3d at 392, because the Court had gt'anted a stay of merits discovery pertaining to Macquarie before ruling on its summary judgment motion.