In Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 1996 Ohio 430, 665 N.E.2d 1102, the Supreme Court, despite stating that the term "excusable neglect" is an elusive concept, nevertheless reiterated its definition "in the negative" by stating that "the inaction of a defendant is not 'excusable neglect' if it can be labeled as a 'complete disregard for the judicial system.'" Id. citing GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113; Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564. The court further stated that although a movant is not required to support its motion with evidentiary materials, the movant must do more than make bare allegations that he or she is entitled to relief. Kay at 20, citing Rose Chevrolet, Inc. Finally, the court held that in order to convince the court that it is in the best interests of justice to set aside the judgment or to grant a hearing, the movant may decide to submit evidentiary materials in support of its motion. Id.