Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the due date.” Consent Motion at 1. As was made clear in Pioneer, however, “inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.” 507 U.S. at 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489. See also Fox v. Am. Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C.Cir.2004) (parties are “obligated to monitor the court’s docket”); Halmon v. Jones Lang Wootton USA, 355 F.Supp.2d 239, 244 (D.D.C.2005) (“Parties have an obligation to monitor the court’s docket and keep apprised of relevant deadlines.”). It is easy to see why this is so. If a simple mistake made by counsel were to excuse an untimely filing, “it [would be] hard to fathom the kind of neglect that we would not deem excusable.” Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 464 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). See also Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect (B) holding that the states failure to object to a late petition for appeal of a termination order granted by the trial court on the basis of excusable neglect constituted a waiver of the states right to contest excusable neglect on appeal to the court of appeals (C) holding that failure to accurately calculate the thirtyday appeal period is not excusable neglect (D) holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal (E) holding that the concept of excusable neglect could not be invoked to gloss over a failure to take minimum safeguards for determining that action is being taken
Output (English): holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect