Interference No. 103,675
matter, we feel compelled to reproduce (without footnotes) Item #5
from pages 7 and 8 of the APJ's decision of April 25, 2000, on which
she relied in denying Bouchard et al.'s motion to reopen in Paper
Number 284. Specifically, Judge Downey stated:
The undersigned finds no good cause for the entry
of the evidence that Bouchard were in possession of before
the close of their extended testimony period and failed to
introduce or for the entry now in the year 2000 for
documents they possessed some years earlier. Further the APJ
finds no good cause for entry of evidence recently adduced
(2000) for use at final hearing to buttress an opposition
filed in May 1996 or a motion that could have been filed in
March of 1996. Since Exhibits 1-45 will not be
entered, there is no good cause for entry of the
declarations in support thereof. 37 C.F.R. § 1.671(f)
requires the explanation of all exhibits relied on by a
party. Bouchard also offers items 4-9 in support of belated
motions No. 9 and 10, which motions have been dismissed.
Accordingly, Bouchard's testimony period will not be
reopened to add this evidence.
Bouchard argue that the undersigned APJ should reopen their
testimony because she agreed to reopen their testimony in an
50
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007