NEDELK V. STIMSON et al. - Page 34



            Interference No. 102,755                                                                   


                        [Underlining omitted.] [Page 2 of corrected                                    
                        preliminary statement, paper No. 18.]                                          
            The motion, which was filed and served, was accompanied by a                               
            notice  that the corrected preliminary statement, including a24                                                                                  
            supporting declaration by Trevor C. Wells and exhibits thereto                             
            were being filed (in a sealed envelope) and would be served                                
            upon order of the APJ.                                                                     
                        On December 6, 1993, the APJ mailed his "Decisions                             
            on Motions" in both interferences.   In both interferences,25                                                
            the                                                                                        
            APJ granted Stimson's motion to file a corrected preliminary                               
            statement, set due dates for the parties' testimony, records,                              
            and briefs, and ordered the parties to serve their preliminary                             
            statements, including Stimson's corrected preliminary                                      
            statement, within two weeks of the mailing date of the                                     
            Decisions on Motions.  Stimson does not dispute Nedelk's claim                             
            (NMB 12) of receiving Stimson's corrected preliminary                                      
            statement on or about December 20, 1993.  In addition, in the                              
            '756 interference the APJ deferred a decision on the XB-70                                 
            motion to final hearing, and authorized DeVlieg (Boeing) to                                
            take testimony on the XB-70 issue during his testimony-in-                                 


              Paper No. 18.24                                                                                   
              Paper No. 21.25                                                                                   
                                               - 32 -                                                  



Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007