for the District of Nebraska. 2 . Clarke contends that the evidence offered was not "newly discovered” within the meaning of Rule 60(b) because new evidence in this context must be evidence that existed at the time of trial but was not discoverable at that time due to some excusable reason. See Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486, 498 (8th Cir.) (stating, "Rule 60(b) permits consideration only of facts which were in existence at the time of trial”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 887, 122 S.Ct. 198, 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001); see, e.g., Betterbox Communications Ltd. v. BB Tech., Inc., 300 F.3d 325, 331 (3d Cir.2002) (evidence must have been in existence at the time of trial to be considered "newly discovered” under Rule 60(b)); NLRB v. lacob Decker & Sons, 569 F.2d 357, 364 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Clarke argues that Jacob's medical symptoms
holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that newly discovered evidence must be that which existed at the time of trial but for an excusable reason was not discoverable until later holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed holding that a plaintiff has the burden of proof to show newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the claim to the federal agency holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial