Interference No. 103,675
earlier conference call. However, after careful
consideration of the motion and opposition, the undersigned
APJ finds that she misspoke before review of the motion and
opposition took place.
Bouchard also argue that the additional evidence
should be entered because it was conducted pursuant to the
APJ's sua sponte suggestion to conduct testing. In support
of this argument, Bouchard refers to their recollection of a
statement allegedly made by the APJ in May 1997, regarding
testing (See the Bouchard Request for reconsideration No.
3). Bouchard also refers to the APJ's order of February 18,
2000. In the view of the undersigned, Bouchard
has misinterpreted the undersigned statements as a sua
sponte suggestion for the parties to adduce additional
evidence outside the assigned testimony periods. The APJ's
statements must be taken in proper context with the
interference rules which provide for orderly procedure.
Authorization for the parties to take testimony was given in
the Decision on Motion (Paper No. 53) and time was set for
taking such testimony, (Paper No. 54) which testimony would
be reviewed by the Board at final hearing.
51
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007