New evidence is usually irrelevant, except in the very narrow circumstance where the statute of limitations is based on a "knew or should have known" moment instead of a "when the incident occurred" moment. (In this context, meaning the first time the plaintiff actually knew, or reasonably should have known, about the incident for which they are suing. Some torts allow for this, most don't.)

The was actually what was at issue here. The inciting incident was way past the statute of limitations on an occurrence basis (years late), but Elon was attempting to claim that there was "new evidence" to reset the start of the clock. He failed, because there was substantial evidence that he knew about the stuff he was suing over when it originally happened.

Honestly surprised he wasn't held in contempt for perjury.

What new evidence would overturn the fact that there was more than 3 years between the relevant events?