The cases Defendants cite in support of their contention concerning the requirement of an affidavit and their diligence arguments are factually distinguishable. First, Home Insurance Co. v. Law Offices of Jonathan Deyoung, 156 F.Supp.2d 488 (E.D.Pa.2001), dealt with counsel's delay in filing an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and the court noted that the failure of counsel to support factual averments related to the disposition of the motion by affidavit was sufficient to find that the party had failed to demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. The court also highlighted that the merits of the client's case had been determined and that any prejudice resulting from the decision would affect only the attorney, who had been assigned all of his client's rights in the case.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided any declarations from her counsel or her counsel's staff substantiating any of the facts surrounding the delay in filing the Motion for Reconsideration, including any evidence to support that it had been "timely drafted" and finalized by October 25, 2011. See Dominic, 841 F.2d at 517 (in assessing excusable neglect, courts should consider "whether an asserted inadvertence reflects an easily manufactured excuse incapable of verification by the court"); Home Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Jonathan Deyoung, P.C., 156 F. Supp. 2d 488, 491 (E.D. Pa. 2001) ("Defendant Hoisington's statements of fact are recited in her motion but are not supported by affidavit. This failure to support her factual averments by affidavit is sufficient to find that defendant Hoisington has failed to satisfy her burden of showing good cause or excusable neglect."

They are as follows: (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; (4) whether the movant acted in good faith; (5) whether the inadvertence reflected professional incompetence such as ignorance of the rules of procedure; (6) whether an asserted inadvertence reflects an easily manufactured excuse incapable of verification by the court; and (7) whether the neglect resulted from complete lack of diligence. See Home Insurance Co. v. Law Offices of Jonathan Devouncr, 156 F. Supp.2d 488, 490-91 (E.D. Pa. 2001); Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del, v. Larson, 827 F.2d 916, 919 (3d Cir. 1987). In the instant case, plaintiff's counsel claims that the filing date was missed because of his "severe, debilitating and deteriorating form of Crohn's Disease (as well as Liver Disease/Hepatitus and anemia)."

In assessing excusable neglect, courts consider all of the surrounding circumstances and weigh several pertinent factors which essentially focus on the reason for the failure to comply, the plausibility of the reason proffered, the exercise of professional competence, the extent of counsel's diligence, the nature of his efforts to comply, any prejudice to the nonmovant, and the length and effect on the proceedings of the delay. See In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products, 246 F.3d 315, 322-23 (3d Cir. 2001); Larson, 827 F.2d at 919; Home Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Jonathan DeYoung, 156 F. Supp.2d 488, 490-91 (E.D.Pa. 2001). Counsel's explanation for his failure to comply is as follows. A telefaxed copy of the order of dismissal regarding EPMI was paper clipped to another document pertinent to another litigation file to which it was misdirected.

In assessing excusable neglect, courts consider all of the surrounding circumstances and weigh several pertinent factors which essentially focus on the reason for the failure to comply, the plausibility of the reason proffered, the exercise of professional competence, the extent of counsel's diligence, the nature of his efforts to comply, any prejudice to the nonmovant, and the length and effect on the proceedings of the delay. See In re Orthopedie Bone Screw Products, 246 F.3d 315, 322-23 (3d Cir. 2001); Larson, 827 F.2d at 919; Home Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Jonathan DeYoung, 156 F. Supp.2d 488, 490-91 (E.D.Pa. 2001). The proffered reason for the failure to comply in this case is the belief of counsel that the time for an appeal ran from April 2, 2002, the day a subsequent order was entered denying another motion, one for a determination of superior interest.