B. Discussion
1.
The conference call was placed by the parties to inform the
board of the status of priority evidence. Wojciak was required
to serve its evidence on the issue of priority on or before 23
July 2001 (Paper 78, Appendix, page 1, Time Period 2). During
the conference call, counsel for Nishiyama pointed out that the
time for Wojciak to serve priority evidence had expired. Counsel
for Wojciak confirmed to the board that Wojciak would not be
serving evidence on the issue of priority. Since Wojciak is
junior party and will not file a priority case, it necessarily
follows that the issue of priority must be resolved against
Wojciak. The parties were advised that a judgment on the issue
of priority would be entered against Wojciak.
2.
a.
There came a time during the interference when the board
entered a MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER (Decision on Wojciak
motion to suppress evidence) (Paper 72, entered 4 June 2001). As
a result of the decision, certain evidence proffered by Nishiyama
was excluded from evidence. Nishiyama, who will prevail on the
issue of priority, timely filed a document styled NISHIYAMA
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PAPER NO. 72 (Paper 81). By the
document, Nishiyama seeks reconsideration of our decision
(Paper 72) to exclude the evidence.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007