(“inadvertent miscalculation of the date by which [plaintiffs] were required to respond to defendants’ filings” not excusable neglect); Ramseur v. Barreto, 216 F.R.D. 180, 182 (D.D.C.2003) (“inadvertently overlooking] a filing deadline [and later] to be reminded of it only by a show cause order some three weeks later [does not] constitute[] excusable neglect”) (internal quotations omitted); Wilson & Co. v. Ward, 1 F.R.D. 691, 691 (D.D.C.1941) (no excusable neglect where demand for jury trial was “inadvertently overlooked” by counsel, even where opposing party consented to enlargement). Courts outside of this jurisdiction have routinely come to similar conclusions concerning excusable neglect and mistake. See, e.g., Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355, 370 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1105, 124 S.Ct. 1047,
holding that the district court abused its discretion when it decided that defense counsels determination of the wrong date by which defendant had to file a notice of appeal constituted excusable neglect holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a belowguidelines sentence in part because it disagreed with the jurys finding that the defendant had the intent to defraud holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint