Opinion ID: 739315
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: newly discovered evidencece

Text: 34 Absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the district court's refusal to vacate or amend the judgment or grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. 25 35
36 Under Louisiana law, life insurance proceeds are exempt from garnishment to satisfy debts of the beneficiary that were already in existence at the time the insurance proceeds were made available for the beneficiary's use. 26 Guidry would now proffer new evidence that she purchased 35% of the Lincoln National account with proceeds from her late husband's life insurance policies. Furthermore, Guidry argues that such information qualifies as newly discovered evidence because her counsel did not interrogate her about such a possibility--and she did not inform her counsel of the origin of the funds of her own volition until shortly after trial. Therefore, Guidry argues, she is entitled to a new trial to prove that 35% of the Lincoln National account is exempt from garnishment because it was purchased with exempt proceeds of life insurance. 37 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, a new trial may be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence if (1) the facts discovered are of such a nature that they would probably change the outcome; (2) the facts alleged are actually newly discovered and could not have been discovered earlier by proper diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely cumulative or impeaching. 27 We today join those of our fellow circuits that have recognized the rule that facts known to a party before trial, even though they were not disclosed to his attorney until after trial, need not be regarded as newly discovered facts for purposes of Rule 59. 28 Guidry complains that such a rule is unfair, as it operates to punish her for her counsel's failure to ask her all the right questions before trial. Although that may be one way of viewing the effects of the district court's ruling and our affirmance, we conclude that any loss by Guidry resulting from the professional deficiency in her attorney's failure to question her adequately when preparing her case for trial is a matter to be remedied between the two of them, not by putting FCBT and the district court through another trial. 38 Neither is a new trial required to prevent manifest injustice, 29 particularly when, as here, the defendants have not demonstrated a probability that the additional evidence they now proffer would have changed the outcome of the case. Even if we assume arguendo that (1) Mrs. Guidry could trace the origin of the funds used to purchase the account to the life insurance proceeds, 30 and (2) the exemption Louisiana law provides for life insurance proceeds would extend to property purchased with such proceeds, Guidry nevertheless would be entitled to little if any exemption. She has already withdrawn at least $178,325 from her account, and Guidry's own calculations show that, at most, only $171,500 of the account's principal might conceivably be exempt from garnishment as life insurance proceeds. Thus, it appears that Guidry has already withdrawn from her account almost $7,000 more than the amount she claims would be exempt. III