Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): record prior to judgment, it is clear that district courts have the discretion to grant such a motion: such an application to reopen the record is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331-32, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77, reh’g denied, 401 U.S. 1015, 91 S.Ct. 1247, 28 L.Ed.2d 552 (1971); Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publ’g Co., 158 F.3d 674, 679 (2d Cir.1998) (“A district court’s decision to reopen the proof to allow a party to submit additional evidence is subject to its sound discretion”); Dow Chem. Pac., Ltd. v. Rascator Mar. S.A., 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir.1986) (same); See also Caracci v. Brother Int’l Sewing Mach. Corp., 222 F.Supp. 769, 771 (E.D.La.1968) aff'd., 341 F.2d 377 (5th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); 12 James Wm. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trial court may properly look with more favor upon a motion to reopen made after submission but before any indication by it as to its decision (B) holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it (C) holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen (D) recognizing laches as an equitable defense to a motion to reopen (E) holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it
Output (English): recognizing laches as an equitable defense to a motion to reopen