The following excerpt is from Abarca v. Merck & Co., Case No. 1:07-cv-388 DOC (DLBx) (E.D. Cal. 2012):
For evidence to classify as "newly discovered" it must "be discovered after the judgment" and "could not be discovered earlier through due diligence" and must be "of such a magnitude that had the court known of it earlier, the outcome would like have been different." Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 n.17 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming a district court's denial of a Rule 59(e) motion because it was not shown that the "newly discovered evidence" could not have been discovered earlier through due diligence).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.