considering a motion for a new trial, Rule 59(a)(2) provides that “[a]f-ter a nonjury trial, the court may ... open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2). Rule 9023 requires that, the motion be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023; see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(7) (defining “Judgment” to mean “any appealable order”). The plain language of Rule 59(a)(2) indicates that a motion under that rule may be brought for many purposes, including seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2808 (3d ed.); see also Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). When considering a Rule 59(a)(2) motion
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 holding that a rule 59a motion must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could and should have been made before the judgment was issued holding that a party cannot use a rule 59e motion to relitigate old matters raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted