Interference No. 103,675
et al. could not have relied on the APJ's "representations" in this
proceeding to "diligently prepare its evidence" in February 2000, when
that evidence had already been taken and filed in another proceeding
in November 1999. Accordingly, we find that the motions to reopen were
properly dismissed or, in the alternative, properly denied.
Finally, Bouchard et al. urge that the APJ should have
granted its motion to strike certain evidence filed by Chen et al.
with their reply to Bouchard et al.'s opposition to Chen et al.'s
preliminary motions for benefit. We disagree. As correctly noted by
the APJ, because she deferred the motions for benefit to final hearing
and gave the parties a testimony period for taking evidence on the
issues raised by the motions for benefit, the motion to strike the
evidence was rendered moot.
THE MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
Both parties have filed motions to suppress certain evidence
proffered by their respective opponent in this interference. Chen et
al. seek in two, separate motions, to exclude (suppress) various parts
of Bouchard et al.'s record and certain of Bouchard et al.'s exhibits.
Bouchard et al. seek to exclude (suppress) all laboratory notebooks of
Ms. Jianmei Wei from the evidence on which Chen et al. may rely and
all of Dr. Chen's testimony relating to the laboratory notebooks of
Ms. Jianmei Wei.
53
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007