Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): purports to be — an authorization to settle the case for $500,000. In sum, the Court rejects Plaintiff's attempt to rely on this prior settlement discourse as a means to establish a viable amendment. 3 . Plaintiff could have amended her administrative claim at this time because the INS had not yet denied her claim. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). However, Plaintiff elected not to file an amendment. 4 . Plaintiff contends that Defendant has the burden of showing that Plaintiff's injury was not reasonably foreseeable when Plaintiff filed her administrative claim. (PL’s Reply at 2-3.) Plaintiff is wrong. It is well settled that a plaintiff has the burden of proving “newly discovered evidence" under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b). See Milano v. United States, 92 F.Supp.2d 769, 774 (N.D.Ill.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Lowry, 958 F.Supp. at 719 (“The 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment (C) 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 (D) 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 (E) holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence
Output (English): 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