Also known as: FRCP 60(b)(2) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) · newly discovered evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A ground for relief from a final civil judgment based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence in time to seek a new trial under Rule 59(b).
Plains Labs obtained a patent judgment against Pacific Logic. Six months later a former Pacific Logic engineer delivered internal emails and code proving concealed prior art that had never been produced. The evidence came from an insider who left the company only after judgment, so the court found it could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence and granted relief under the rule.
Jamal was convicted on testimony from Rico. After verdict Rico signed a sworn recantation and internal emails surfaced showing coercion by team management. The motion was filed well within three years of the verdict, satisfying the timing rule for newly discovered evidence and allowing the court to consider vacating the judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Peggy was convicted after a bench trial. Twenty days after verdict her counsel moved for a new trial citing the judge's mid-trial comments as bias. Because the ground was not newly discovered evidence the fourteen-day deadline applied and the motion was denied as untimely.
After conviction Washington sought relief claiming counsel failed to investigate mitigating evidence. Newly obtained records showed the evidence had been available but overlooked. The court examined whether the new material met the diligence standard for reopening the judgment.
Allen filed a habeas petition after state conviction. Later records emerged showing defects not apparent on the original trial transcript. The court considered whether the new material qualified as evidence that could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
Maryland was convicted after trial. Post-judgment disclosure revealed exculpatory statements the prosecution had withheld. The defense moved for relief arguing the statements constituted newly discovered evidence that could not have been obtained earlier despite reasonable efforts.
The motion must be filed within a reasonable time and no later than one year after entry of the judgment. The one-year limit is strict and measured from the date the judgment is entered.
Supporting sources
The party must demonstrate that the evidence is newly discovered, that it could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and that it would probably produce a different result.
Supporting sources
The district court may consider the motion while an appeal is pending but cannot grant relief that alters the judgment without appellate leave or remand.
Supporting sources
Rule 59 requires filing within twenty-eight days and is limited to matters that could have been raised at trial. Rule 60(b)(2) allows later relief when evidence truly could not have been discovered in time for a Rule 59 motion.
Supporting sources
…in criminal proceedings. Moreover, it comports with the widely used standard for assessing motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19-20, and nn. 10, 11. Nevertheless, the standard is not quite appropriate. Even when the specified attorney error results in the omission of…