be relieved and receiving new evidence on the underlying dispositive or second doesn't seem to be order in this particular case provide a clear indication that nothing further was left to be done b and third parties waive the requirement for a separate rule fifty eight judgment or was one still in to supporting in preparing for the hearing the honors i again went back and did a little more research and found a rule sixty b relief is to restore the parties to the position they were in before the court issued the vacated order any case where what happened in those cases is what happened here that is where reconsideration is granted but the court after granting reconsideration after considering the evidence brought to it reaffirms the judgment previously entered that is your question and did that happen in those cases yes i believe i don't believe it did but i don't believe the difficulty i'm having honor is the use of the term re to reaffirm implies that the same action which was previously done is being revalidated and it can only be done on a prior record on which it was first given when the record has changed we believe the use of the term reaffirm is inappropriate and in fact what the judge did in this case was confirmed that her decision to grant summary judgment for west remains despite the additional evidence but we now have a new record it is not the record that was previously before the court on which summary judgment initially was granted but a new record which after consideration of new evidence she decide where appropriate for her to do what she did correct but we determined that the end of the case well that's correct but having realizing that the prior it doesn't matter if the court has explicitly stated i've considered your grounds for seeking sixty relief i find them valid i am prepared to open the record i am prepared to receive evidence i have received evidence and i now make my ruling based on the entire record then when it comes up for review again on that sixty be ruling the court would review the entire record not just the additional correct so why isn't the judgment perfectly good because when we submitted grounds for six to be reconsideration and the court found there that with satisfied the standards for sixty b she approach would be to take rule sixty be completely out of the federal rules of civil procedure and you can't do that while sixty be explicitly recognizes the right of a district court to go back and was certainly timely we had a reasonable time to bring it sixty motions can be brought within a year so it was highly she could have decided upon review of our bases for sixty relief that we have not the standard and denied for example she could have found that the evidence was not correct that was within your grasp earlier and you could have brought it to the attention of the quarter she certainly could have done it she did not  if she found that there was a confusion as to what the scope of the motion was to be and that it was one based upon her initial order an instruction that the motions were directed to the applicability of twenty eight sixty  notice an appeal from the original judgment why not have noticed an appeal frankly i don't know the answer to that i do know that when we went back and looked at that judgment if we can plainly apparent to us that she had gone beyond that which the parties have asked for and what she had to record for summary judgment we went back to her and said look we think you've exceeded what the parties asked for we did not present evidence on that issue because it was not what you had asked us to file summary judgment motions on she  and she allowed us the opportunity to present the additional evidence sixty b provides that vehicle block the standing the fact that we did so and it significantly later time it was relief that she accepted that was the last day that they could file either a rule the nine motion or a rule sixty b motion which with pull the effect of the judgment becoming final as this court correctly ruled on october second two thousand and three the judgment is final there is nothing that could happen after november tenth of two thousand and one thirty days after the judgment was entered which could change the finality of that judgment in fact when the court heard the motion for reconsideration that counsel is referring to the court really only have one thing you could do which was the ny ultimately the relief side because the judgment was final what counsel had to do with the appellant had to do in this case was if they wanted to change their judgment and preserve their right to appeal the judgment they needed to file a motion within ten days under rule fifty nine or rule sixty which they never did so the crucial date your honour's is november ten two thousand and one the judgment in this case  final so when counsel later files an x party application for entry of the new judgment the court correctly rejected that for two grounds one the court reasoned correctly that she had never changed the judgment in the first place and therefore there was no need for a new judgment but secondly she couldn't change the judgment because again as this very court ruled on october second two thousand and three that judg the effect of granting a rule sixty the motion is to put the parties back in the same position that's not this case the court never vacated the judgment it never modify the judge and never change a judgment and it couldn't because the judgment had become final on november second two thousand and  there's no way that the court could have received new evidence considered it and issued a ruling without having vacated the underlying judge it's simply not possible like the cork look at something reconsideration are the party moving so we've asked you to reconsider here on the grounds what we want to reconsider and here's the material we want you to consider the court goes through an analysis in the first instance to determine the justification as justification and made in this case the court explicitly reviewed in the fields explicitly found that there was a justification to reopen and to reconsider she then they did consider the evidence and decided that the results should be the same as have been previously decided the use of the term reaffirmed is unfortunate because you cannot reaffirm if there is a different record you can  just argue will be submitted for decision and will proceed to the next case on the docket which is martha