SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court's August 16, 2012 order is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Cleuza Colucci2 appeals from the District Court's August 16, 2012 memorandum and order, denying her motion for relief from final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

The decision whether to grant a party's Rule 60(b) motion is committed to the "sound discretion" of the district court. Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012). Rule 60(b) is "a mechanism for `extraordinary judicial relief' invoked only if the moving party demonstrates `exceptional circumstances."' Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A district court's determination that a Rule 60(b) motion is untimely remains subject to this abuse-of-discretion standard. See, e.g., Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 1989).

Colucci argues on appeal that her motion should have been granted pursuant to three of Rule 60(b)'s clauses: 60(b)(1), 60(b)(2), and the residual clause, 60(b)(6). We disagree.

A.

First, Colucci's motion is time barred. "A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). This one-year limitations period is "absolute." Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2000). Colucci filed her motion on April 2, 2012, the final day permitted under the applicable period; however, the accompanying memorandum of law was not submitted until April 6, 2012, four days after the deadline had expired. Accordingly, the District Court acted within its discretion in holding that Colucci's motion was untimely in light of the Court's Local Civil Rule 7.1(a), which requires all motions to include a "memorandum of law setting forth the cases and other authorities relied upon in support of the motion." Local Rule 7.1(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (requiring a motion to "state with particularity" the ground on which it is based). Any interpretation of the rules permitting piecemeal filing, as Colucci advances here, would allow parties to circumvent the purpose of Rule 60's time limits by filing incomplete motion papers at the deadline. Cf. Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 463 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Permitting the [plaintiffs] to supplant their timely yet insufficient `placeholder' Rule 59(e) motion . . . with their subsequent augmented filing . . . would afford them an easy way to circumvent Rule 60(b)'s prohibition on granting an enlargement of time for filing motions under Rule 59(e).").3

In an attempt to circumvent the one-year bar, Colucci recasts her Rule 60(b)(2) motion in the guise of a motion under Rule 60(b)(6), which does not have a filing deadline. Colucci all but concedes this point when she states, in reference to Modzelewski's affidavit, "[t]his is newly available evidence [that] presents a previously undisclosed fact so central to the litigation that it shows the initial judgment to have been manifestly unjust, and reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) is proper." Appellant's Br. 20 (emphasis supplied) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet "Rule 60(b)(6) is a broadly drafted `umbrella provision,' which must be read in conjunction with the other sections of that Rule, and is applicable only where the more specific provisions do not apply." PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894, 898 (2d Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Colucci's Rule 60(b)(6) motion is more properly construed as a Rule 60(b)(2) claim of newly-discovered evidence, and, thus, is also barred under the absolute one-year deadline.

B.

Second, the District Court did not err in denying Colucci's motion on the merits. Rule 60(b)(1) allows for relief from judgment in cases of mistake, including legal errors made by the District Court. See United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 175 (2d Cir. 2009). Even assuming Colucci may challenge the legal basis for the District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint, notwithstanding the subsequent dismissal of her direct appeal, see note 3, ante, we find no legal error in the District Court's well-reasoned and thorough opinion, see U.S. ex rel. Colucci v. Beth Isr. Med. Ctr., 785 F.Supp.2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Rule 60(b)(2) provides relief from judgment when the movant presents "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial."4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). The purported newly-discovered evidence upon which Colucci relies is an affidavit by Donald Modzelowski, Beth Israel Medical Center's former Vice President for Medicare Reimbursements, in which he describes his own involvement in the alleged scheme to overbill Medicare. Modzelowski details a conversation with Thomas Hayes, former CFO of Beth Israel, during which Hayes instructs Modzelowski to misrepresent to a Medicare representative that teaching was being conducted at two of Beth Israel's non-teaching hospitals. Colucci claims that this evidence could not have been discovered until shortly before expiration of the one-year deadline because Modzelowski was serving a sentence of probation from a state conviction, and in response to any efforts to compel his testimony, Modzelowski would have invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Yet such evidence could have been discovered with reasonable diligence far in advance of the date of the entry of judgment. In August 2008, Modzelewski was a "professional consultant" on Colucci's case at both the state and federal level, and in June 2009, he participated in settlement negotiations. Colucci's argument that Modzelewski would have asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege if compelled to testify is too speculative; an affiant is only unavailable when he has actually invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 804 advisory committee's note ("Substantial authority supports the position that exercise of a claim of privilege by the declarant satisfies the requirement of unavailability. . . . A ruling by the judge is required, which clearly implies that an actual claim of privilege must be made." (citations omitted)). And, most importantly, even assuming Modzelewski would have sought Fifth Amendment protection during his term of probation, the term ended in November 2010, five months before the District Court's entry of judgment and seventeen months before Colucci filed her motion for relief from judgment.5 Accordingly, the District Court did not err in denying Colucci's Rule 60(b)(2) motion on the merits.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Colucci's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the August 16, 2012 order of the District Court.