Interference No. 103,675
what was sought to be excluded in the original motion. Chen et al.
have opposed Bouchard et al.'s motion under both § 1.635 and
§1.656(h). According to Chen et al., Bouchard et al.'s belated motion
should be denied because they have failed to show "good cause" as
required by § 1.645(b). Additionally, Chen et al. argue that Bouchard
et al. have added additional substantive arguments in their
supplemental motion.
We agree with Bouchard et al. that the requirements for a
motion under §1.656(h) are set forth in the rule and that Bouchard et
al.'s originally filed motion satisfied the requirements of that rule.
While we do not condone the failure of Bouchard et al. to follow the
APJ's interlocutory order, whether through inadvertence or otherwise,
we agree with Bouchard et al. that Chen et al. are not prejudiced by
the supplemental motion because the motion does not seek to exclude
any materials whose exclusion was not sought in the original motion.
Further, because Bouchard et al. recognized their omission promptly
and both filed and served the supplemental motion after consulting
with counsel for Chen et al. within 6 (six) days of filing the
original motion, we find no prejudice to Chen et al. in the belated
filing and shall accept the belatedly filed supplemental motion to
suppress. Accordingly, Bouchard et al.'s motions under §§ 1.635/1.645
to accept belatedly the supplemental motion under §1.656(h) are
55
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007