Interference No. 103,036
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the party
Tucholski has not sustained its burden to show an abuse of
discretion.
Issue 3(iii)
With respect to issue 3(iii), the party Tucholski urges
that the APJ abused his discretion by permitting the senior party
Burroughs et al. to raise its "Category B" motions at the first
final hearing. The party Tucholski contends that raising these
motions resulted "in added expense, time and complication for the
parties involved in this interference and for the Board."
In Interlocutory Order No. 8, Section VI, the APJ
acknowledged the senior party Burroughs et al.'s request to have
17 motions reviewed at the first final hearing, ordered the
senior party to categorize its motions, and stated that the
senior party would be permitted to raise at the first final
hearing its motions which relate to the right of the junior
parties Tucholski and Cataldi et al. to remain in this
interference and which do not rely upon the consideration of any
affidavit evidence submitted by any party in its motion,
opposition, or reply. These motions (two) were later identified
-70-
Page: Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007