Interference No. 103,197
2. Declaration testimony44
Buschmann‘s objections to the testimony of various
witnesses as "hearsay" fail because the motion did not comply
with the following requirements in the APJ’s June 26, 1995,
scheduling order (at 13-14):45
[A] motion by the senior party to suppress evidence
must . . . explain where the evidence in question is
relied on in the junior party’s opening brief. A motion
to suppress evidence as inadmissible hearsay must
specifically identify the out-of-court statement in
question and explain why it appears that the opponent is
offering or intends to offer the statement itself (as
opposed to related testimony) to prove the truth of the
matter stated therein. [Original emphasis.]
Accordingly, the motion is dismissed as to these objections.
The objections to testimony about the November 24, 1987,
exhibit (MX 42) fail because, as explained above, Morrison is
entitled to rely on that drawing to establish the March 15,
1988, date alleged in his original preliminary statement. The
motion is therefore denied as to these objections.
The objections for lack of foundation, i.e., personal
knowledge, fail because the motion does not assert that, or
The item numbers and letters used herein correspond to44
those used in the motion to suppress (at 5-7).
Paper No. 93.45
- 26 -
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007