Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5, 2008
    BEFORE
    THE
    ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    MUNICIPAL
    UNITED
    CITYCORPORATION,
    OF
    YORKVILLE,
    A
    ))
    H
    [:
    I
    I
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    PCB
    No.
    08-95
    V.
    )
    (Appeal
    of
    Agency
    Action)
    )
    ILLiNOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    and
    HAMMAN
    )
    FARMS,
    )
    Respondents.
    NOTICE
    OF
    FILING
    TO:
    SEE
    ATTACHED
    SERVICE
    LIST
    PLEASE
    TAKE
    NOTICE
    that
    on
    September
    5, 2008,
    we
    electronically
    filed
    with
    the
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    Respondent
    Hainman
    Farms’
    Motion
    for
    Attorney’s
    fees,
    copies
    of
    which
    are
    attached
    hereto
    and
    hereby served
    upon
    you.
    Dated:
    September
    5,
    2008
    Respectfully
    submitted,
    On
    behalf
    of
    HAMMAN
    FARMS
    IS’
    charles
    F.
    Heisten
    One
    of Its
    Attorneys
    Charles
    F.
    Heisten
    Nicola
    Nelson
    Hinshaw
    &
    Culbertsou
    LLP
    100 Park
    Avenue
    P.O. Box
    1389
    Rockford,
    IL 61105-1389
    815-490-4900
    70566464v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s Office,
    September
    5, 2008
    BEFORE THE
    iLLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    UNITED CITY
    OF
    YORXV1LLE,
    A
    )
    MUNICIPAL
    CORPORATION,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    PCB
    Io. 08-95
    v,
    )
    (Appeal
    ofAgency
    Action)
    )
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY
    and
    HAMN4AN
    Respondents.
    IJAMIWAN
    FARMS’
    MOTION
    FOR
    ATTORNIY’S
    FEES
    NOW
    COMES Respondent,
    HAMMAN
    FARMS,
    by
    and
    through
    its attorneys,
    Charles
    F.
    Heisten
    and HINSHAW
    &
    CULBERTSON
    LLP, pursuant
    to 35 1llAdni.Code
    100.101(b)
    and
    Supreme
    Court Rule 137, and
    for its
    Motion for
    Attorney’s Fees, states
    as
    follows:
    1.
    The illinois
    Environmental
    Protection Act
    and
    the Board’s
    Rules delineate
    the
    specifIc types of actions
    that
    may be
    flied
    with
    the
    Board, and provide
    that
    the
    Board’s
    jurisdiction is limited
    to those enumerated
    actions. 415
    ILCS
    5/5(d);
    2 TlLAdm.Code
    2175.600(a).
    No other types of actions
    may be filed.
    2.
    On June 4, 2008, the
    United
    City
    of
    Yorkville
    (hereinafter
    “Yorkville”)
    filed
    a
    Petition
    for
    Review seeking
    review
    of what
    it
    termed a “final
    determination”
    by the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (“IEPA”).
    3.
    The
    subject
    of Yorkville’s
    action was
    a finding by the
    1EPA that
    the
    soil
    characteristics
    and/or
    crop needs
    of the
    farmland
    owned
    by
    Hamman
    Farms
    justified
    a
    particular
    rate
    of
    agronomic application
    of
    landscape
    waste.
    The
    IEPA’s
    finding
    came
    in
    response to
    a
    request
    by
    Respondent, Hamman
    Farms,
    for
    an
    agronomic
    rate
    determination
    pursuant to
    415
    rLCS
    5/21(q)..
    70572618v1
    890519 6799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    4.
    When
    Yorkville
    commenced
    its
    action
    against
    Hamman
    Farms,
    it knew
    or
    should
    have
    known
    that the
    Act
    does
    not
    authorize
    an
    action
    for review
    of
    technical
    findings
    such as
    the
    one
    challenged
    in
    its Petition,
    and
    also
    knew
    or
    should
    have
    known
    that
    even
    if
    the
    LEPA’s
    challenged
    fmding
    had
    constituted
    the granting
    of a
    permit,
    it
    has
    been
    clear
    for
    decades
    that,
    as
    a
    matter
    of law,
    the Board
    lacks
    jurisdiction
    to
    hear Petitions
    by third
    parties
    challenging
    the
    IEPA’s
    grant
    of a
    permit.
    (See Landfill,
    Inc. v.
    PCB,
    74
    Iii.
    2d
    541, 387
    N.E.2d
    258, 264-65
    (1978)).
    5.
    Nevertheless,
    Yorkville
    purposely
    filed
    its frivolous
    action
    with
    the
    intent
    to
    harass
    and annoy
    Respondent
    Haniman
    Farms.
    6.
    Even
    after
    Respondent
    Hamman
    Farms
    brought
    it to Yorkville’s
    attention
    that
    there
    was
    absolutely
    no
    jurisdiction for the
    Board
    to
    hear
    the
    Petition,
    and that
    the Board’s
    lack
    of jurisdiction
    was
    exceedingly
    well-settled
    law,
    Yorkville
    continued
    to pursue
    its
    frivolous
    action
    and,
    in
    so
    doing,
    it
    purposely
    caused
    Harriman
    Farms
    to
    incur
    considerable
    litigation
    expenses,
    including,
    but
    not
    limited
    to attendance
    at (telephonic) hearings;
    preparation
    and
    briefing
    of
    a
    Motion
    to
    Dismiss
    based
    on
    the
    lack of
    jurisdiction;
    preparation
    of
    briefs
    in
    response
    to the
    Hearing
    Officer’s
    July
    24,
    2008 Order;
    and
    preparation
    of
    a brief
    opposing
    the
    oppressive,
    harassing,
    and
    irrelevant
    discovery
    served
    by
    Yorkvi
    lie.
    7.
    On August
    7,
    2008,
    this
    Honorable
    Board
    dismissed
    Yorkville’s
    action
    for
    want
    of
    jurisdiction, observing
    that
    the
    Board’s
    lack
    of jurisdiction
    over
    the matters
    alleged
    in
    the
    Petition
    is
    well-settled
    law. (See
    Board’s
    Order
    of August
    7,
    2008).
    &
    Although
    the
    Board’s
    procedural
    rules
    are
    silent
    with
    respect
    to
    the relief
    available
    to
    Respondents
    who
    are subjected
    to such
    frivolous,
    harassing
    actions,
    the
    Rules
    provide
    that “the
    Board
    may
    look
    to the
    Code
    of Civil
    Procedure
    and
    the
    Supreme
    Court
    Rules
    for
    guidance
    where
    the Board’s
    procedural
    rules
    are
    silent.”
    35
    lll.Adm.Code
    101.100(b).
    2
    70572618v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    -
    Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    9.
    Supreme
    Court
    Rule
    137
    provides,
    in
    pertinent
    part,
    that:
    The
    signature
    of
    an
    attorney
    or a
    party
    constitutes
    a certificate
    by
    him
    that
    he
    has
    read
    the
    pleading,
    motion
    or
    other
    paper;
    that
    to
    the
    best
    of
    his knowledge,
    information,
    and belief
    formed
    after
    reasonable
    inquiry
    it is
    well
    grounded..
    .and..
    .is
    not
    interposed
    for
    any improper
    purpose,
    such
    as to
    harass
    or
    to cause
    unnecessary
    delay
    or
    needless
    increase
    in
    the
    cost
    of
    litigation.
    ..,
    If
    a
    pleading,
    motion
    or
    other
    paper
    is
    signed
    in violation
    of
    this rule,
    the
    court,
    upon
    motion
    or
    upon
    its own
    initiative,
    may impose
    upon
    the
    person
    who
    signed
    it,
    a represented
    party,
    or both,
    an
    appropriate
    sanction,
    which
    may
    include
    an order
    to
    pay to
    the
    other
    party
    or
    parties
    the
    amount
    of
    reasonable
    expenses
    incurred
    because
    of
    the
    filing
    of
    the
    pleading,
    motion,
    or
    other
    paper,
    including
    a
    reasonable
    attorney
    fee.
    Illinois
    Supreme
    Court
    Rule 137.
    10.
    Here,
    Yorkville
    filed
    the
    instant
    action,
    and
    thereafter
    flied
    pleadings
    and
    other
    papers
    in
    support
    of that
    action,
    including,
    but
    not
    limited
    to harassing,
    irrelevant,
    and oppressive
    discovery,
    and
    knew
    or should
    have
    known
    that
    its
    action
    and
    its
    additional
    pleadings
    and
    papers
    were
    not
    well-grounded,
    and
    were
    thus interposed
    for improper
    purposes.
    11.
    As
    a
    result
    of
    Yorkville’s
    harassing
    conduct,
    Respondent
    Hamman
    Farms
    was
    forced
    to
    incur
    reasonable
    attorney’s
    fees of
    $20,325.00,
    as
    well as
    related
    expenses
    in
    the
    additional
    amount
    of
    $265.81
    to
    defend
    itself
    (see
    Exhibit
    A attached
    hereto
    and
    incorporated
    herein
    by
    this
    reference)
    and,
    accordingly,
    pursuant
    to Supreme
    Court
    Rule
    137 and
    35
    1i1.Adm.Code 101.100(b),
    Respondent
    Hamman
    Farms
    requests
    that
    this
    Honorable
    Board
    enter
    an
    award
    in the
    total
    amount
    of
    $20,590.81.
    WHEREFORE, HAMMAN
    FARMS
    respectfully
    requests
    that
    the Board
    enter
    an
    order
    granting
    its
    reasonable
    attorney’s
    fees
    of
    $20,325
    plus
    related
    expenses
    in
    the additional
    amount
    of $265.81
    for
    a
    total
    of
    $20,590.81,
    and such
    other
    and further
    relief
    as it
    deems
    appropriate
    and
    just.
    3
    7a572618v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September 5,
    2008
    Dated:
    September 5,
    2008
    -
    Respectfully
    submitted,
    On
    behalf of
    Hamman Farms
    Is!
    Charles F.
    Heisten
    One
    of Its Attorneys
    Charles F. Heisten
    Nicola Nelson
    Hinshaw
    & Culbertson LLP
    100 Park Avenue
    P.O. Box 1389
    Roekford,
    IL,
    6H05-1389
    815-490-4900
    4
    70572618v1 890519
    66799

    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk’s
    Office, September
    5, 2008
    kFflDAVIT
    01?
    SERVICE
    The undersigned,
    pursuant to
    the
    provisions of
    Section 1.409 of the Illinois
    Code
    of Civil
    Procedure, hereby under penalty
    of perjury under
    the
    laws of
    the United States
    of America,
    certifies that on September
    5,
    2008, she
    caused to be served
    a copy of
    the
    foregoing upon:
    Mr. John T. Therriault,
    Assistant
    Clerk
    via
    e-mail
    Illinois
    Pollution Control Board
    Thomas
    G.
    Gardiner
    100
    W.
    Randolph,
    Suite I
    1-500
    Michelle
    M. LaGrotta
    Chicago, IL 60601
    GARDINER
    KOCH
    & WEISBERG
    ttiernajipcb.state.i!.us
    53 W.
    Jackson
    Blvd., Ste.
    950
    (via electronic filing)
    Chicago, IL 60604
    tgardiner(gkw-law.corn
    rn1agrottagkw4aw.com
    via
    e-mail
    via emaill
    Michelle Ryan
    Bradley P. Halloran
    Division
    of Legal Counsel
    Hearing
    Officer
    Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1021 N.
    Grand
    Avenue East
    James R.
    Thompson
    Center,
    Suite
    11-500
    P.O. Box 19276
    100w.
    Randolph
    Street
    Springfield,
    IL
    62794-9276
    Chicago,
    IL
    60601
    Michelle
    Ryanfllinois.gov
    halIorabipcb.state.il.us
    A
    copy
    of
    the
    same
    was enclosed
    in
    an envelope in
    the
    United
    States
    mail at Rockford, Illinois,
    proper postage prepaid,
    before the hour
    of 5:00 p.m., addressed
    asabove.
    PCB No. 08-95
    Charles
    F.
    Heisten
    Nicola
    A.
    Nelson
    H1NSHAW &
    CULBERTSON
    100
    Park
    Avenue
    P.O.
    Box
    1389
    Rockford,
    IL 61105-1389
    (815)490-4900
    70566472v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    8
    EXHIBIT
    BEFORE
    THE
    ILLiNOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    UNITED
    CifY
    OF
    YORKVILLE,
    A
    )
    MUNICIPAL
    CORPORATION,
    3
    Petitioner,
    )
    PCB
    No.
    08-95
    v.
    )
    (Appeal
    of
    Agency
    Action)
    )
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    and, HAMMAN
    )
    FARMS,
    3
    Respondents.
    AFFIDAVIT
    OF CHARLES
    F.
    HELSTEN
    I, Charles
    F.
    Heisten,
    being
    first duly
    sworn
    on oath,
    do
    hereby
    state
    as
    follows:
    1.
    1
    am
    lead
    counsel
    of
    record
    for
    the Respondent
    Hamman
    Farms
    in the
    above
    matter;
    2.
    In
    that
    capacity,
    I am
    familiar
    with
    all
    work
    conducted
    by
    Hrnshaw
    &
    Culbertson
    on
    behalf
    of
    Hamman
    Fanns
    in
    defense
    of the
    claim
    asserted
    by the
    United
    City
    ofYorkville
    in
    the
    above
    matter;
    3.
    Attached to
    this
    Affidavit
    is a
    detailed
    summary
    of
    all
    attorneys
    fees and
    related
    expenses
    incurred
    on
    behalf
    of
    the
    Respondent
    Harnman
    Farms
    in
    defense
    of
    this
    matter.
    Further,
    based
    upon
    my
    twenty-nine years
    of
    practice
    in this
    area,
    I
    am
    familiar
    with
    attorney
    fee
    rates
    and
    expenses
    normally
    and
    customarily
    charged
    incurred
    in
    matters
    such
    as
    this,
    and
    those
    charges
    included
    in
    the
    attached
    itemization
    are
    fair
    and reasonable,
    and
    in
    accord
    with
    those
    billing
    standards.
    Further,
    the
    Affiant
    say
    not.
    70573618v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5, 2008
    Dated:
    September
    5,
    2008
    Respectfully
    submitted,
    Charles
    F.
    Helsten
    Nicola
    Nelson
    Hinshaw
    &
    Culbertson
    LLP
    100 Park
    Avenue
    P.O. Box 1389
    Rockford, 1L
    61105-1389
    815-490-4900
    2
    FARMS
    F,
    Heisten
    of Its Attorneys
    70573618vt 890519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    EXHIBIT
    B
    DATE
    ATTORNEY
    SERVICES
    TIME
    INITIALS
    06/10/08
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CALLS
    WITH
    CHARLIE
    4.5
    MURPHY
    RE:
    STATUS
    AND
    HAMMAN
    FARMS’
    RECEIPT
    OF
    PETiTION
    FILED
    BY
    CITY
    OF
    YORKVILLE
    WITH
    PCB;
    REVIEW
    PETITION
    AN
    COMPLAINT
    FILED
    BY
    CITY
    OF
    YORKVILLE
    iN
    PCB
    08-95;
    RESEARCH
    JURISDICTIONAL
    AUTHORITY
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    TO
    HEAR
    THE
    ACTIONS,
    AND
    POSSIBLE
    GROUNDS
    FOR OBTAINING
    DISMISSAL
    OF THE
    TWO
    ACTIONS;
    DRAFT
    EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    EXPLAINING
    THE
    GROUNDS
    FOR
    DISMISSAL
    IDENTIFIED
    iN
    THE
    RESEARCH
    06/11/08
    NAN
    CONCLUDE
    RESEARCH
    AND
    .80
    DRAFTING
    OF MEMO
    ANALYZING
    CITY
    OF
    YORKVILLE’S
    COMPLAINT
    AND
    PETITION
    FILED
    WITH
    PCB AND
    PROPOSING
    GROUNDS
    FOR
    MOTIONS
    TO
    DISMISS.
    06/13/08
    CFH
    ADDITIONAL
    FOLLOW-UP
    TELEPHONE
    .10
    CALL
    TO CLIENT.
    06/13/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    ADDITIONAL
    E-MAIL
    1.00
    COMMUNICATIONS
    FROM
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY,
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    AND
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    RE:
    THOUGHTS
    ON
    NATURE
    OF RESPONSIVE
    PLEADING
    TO
    BE
    FILED
    TO
    CITY
    OF
    YORKVILLE
    CITIZENS
    SUIT
    .7; OFFICE
    CONFERENCE WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME
    .3
    06/13/08
    CFH
    EXTENDED
    TELEPHONE
    .90
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    RE:
    MOST
    RECENT
    DEVELOPMENTS
    IN
    MATrER;
    ADDITIONAL
    EXTENDED
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    RE:
    ISSUES
    RAISED
    BY
    VILLAGE
    OF YORKVILLE
    IN
    BOTH
    PETITION
    AND
    COMPLAINT
    FILED
    70573531v1
    &90519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    BEFORE
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD.
    06/13/08
    CFH
    PRELIMINARY
    REVIEW
    OF
    TEN PAGE
    1.20
    REVISED
    RESEARCH
    MEMO
    FROM
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    ON
    CITY
    OF
    YORKVILLE
    PETITION
    AND
    COMPLAINT
    FILED
    BEFORE
    ILLiNOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    .8;
    RESPONSE
    E-MAIL
    TO CLIENT
    AN])
    CO
    COUNSEL
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    CONCERNING
    SAME
    .4
    06/20/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    TWO PAGE
    CHICAGO
    .40
    TRIBUNE
    ARTICLE;
    REVIEW
    OF
    SUBSEQUENT
    E-MAIL
    COMMUNICATION
    FROM
    IEPA
    BUREAU
    OF
    LAND
    PERMIT
    DIVISION
    CONCERNING
    SAME; TELEPHONE
    CALL
    TO IEPA
    DIRECTOR’S
    OFFICE
    CONCERNING
    SAME
    06/24/08
    NAN
    DETERMINE
    DEADLINE
    AND DRAFT
    .20
    BRIEF EXPLANATION
    OF THE
    DEADLINES
    IN
    THE
    PCB CASE.
    06/25/08
    NAN
    DRAFT
    MOTION
    TO DISMISS
    THE
    3.70
    CITY’S
    PETITION SEEKING
    REVIEW
    OF
    IEPA’S
    DECISION
    ON
    THE
    RATE
    OF
    APPLICATION
    iN PCB
    08-095, AND THE
    MEMORANDUM
    OF LAW IN SUPPORT
    OF THE
    MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS.
    06/26108
    NAN
    FINALIZE
    EDITS
    TO MOTION TO
    1.80
    DISMISS
    AND MEMORANDUM
    OF
    LAW
    iN SUPPORT, SEEKING
    DISMISSAL
    OF
    PCB 08-095
    (REVIEW
    OF IEPA DECISION
    ON RATE OF
    APPLICATION.
    06/30/08
    NAN
    TELECONFERENCE
    WITH
    CHARLIE
    .20
    MURPHY
    RE:
    STATUS
    OF CASES
    BEFORE
    PCB.
    07/01/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF TWO PAGE
    HEARING
    .60
    OFFICER ORDER FROM
    ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    CONCERNING
    STATUS
    HEARING
    AND
    CITY OF YORKVILLE
    ACTIONS
    AGAINST HAMMAN
    FARMS;
    REViEW
    OF ADDITIONAL
    E-MAIL
    COMMUNICATION
    FROM
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON CONCERNING
    SAME;
    RESPONSE
    TO
    SAME; REVIEW
    OF
    2
    70573531v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s Office,
    September
    5, 2008
    ADDITIONAL
    E-MAIL
    COMMUNiCATION
    FROM
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME;
    PREPARATION
    OF RESPONSE
    TO SAME.
    07/01/08
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    WITH
    CHARLIE
    80
    MURPHY
    RE:
    STATUS
    AND
    RE:
    CORRESPONDENCE
    RECEIVED
    BY
    HAMMAN
    FARMS
    FROM
    PCB
    (SETTING
    STATUS
    HEARING
    IN
    08-095);
    REVIEW
    FAXED
    NOTICES
    FROM
    AG’S
    OFFICE
    AND
    FROM
    PCB;
    STRATEGIZE
    RE:
    RESPONDING
    TO
    PCB
    AND
    AG;
    DRAFT
    APPEARANCE
    IN
    PCB
    08-095.
    07/02/08
    -
    CFH
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WiTH
    NICOLA
    .70
    NELSON
    RE: 7/3/08
    TELECONFERENCE
    WITH
    IPCB
    flARING
    OFFICER
    ASSIGNED
    TO MATTER
    AND
    STATUS
    OF
    FINALIZATION
    OF
    MOTIONS
    TO
    DISMISS
    TO
    BE FILED
    IN
    BOTH
    ACTIONS.
    07/02/08
    NAN
    STRATEGIZE
    RE:
    ARGUMENTS
    TO
    BE
    3.5
    USED
    TO
    DEFEAT
    YORKVILLE’S
    ACTIONS
    BEFORE
    PCB.
    DRAFT EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    WITH
    STATUS
    UPDATE.
    REVISE
    MOTION
    TO DISMISS
    AND
    BRIEF
    N
    SUPPORT
    IN
    08-095;
    PHONE
    CALL WITH
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    RE:
    STATUS
    AND
    UPCOMING
    CONFERENCE
    CALL
    WITH
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    ON
    7/3/08.
    07/03/0
    8
    CFH
    TWO
    TELEPHONE
    CALLS WITH
    .40
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    RE:
    POSTPONEMENT
    OF
    TELEPHONIC
    STATUS
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    hEARING
    OFFICER
    AND
    OUTCOME
    OF
    JEPA
    FIELD
    INSPECTION
    ON
    SAME
    MORNING.
    07/03/08
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    TO
    MICHELLE
    2.90
    LAGROTTA
    (ATTORNEY
    FOR
    YORKVTLLE)
    RE: UPCOMING
    CONFERENCE
    CALL;
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    TO
    PCB
    (MICHELLE
    RYAN)
    RE:
    THE RE
    SCHEDULED
    CONFERENCE
    CALL;
    DRAFT
    EMAiL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO
    3
    7O5735Mv1
    3G519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    -
    Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5, 2008
    CHARLIE
    PROVIDING
    STATUS UPDATE;
    CONTINUE
    DRAFTING
    AND
    REVISING
    MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS
    AND
    BRIEF
    IN
    SUPPORT
    IN
    PCB
    08-095.
    07/07/08
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    WITH
    MICHELLE
    6.80
    RYAN
    AT
    IEPA
    RE:
    TODAY’S
    TELECONFERENCE;
    BRIEF
    CALL
    TO
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    RE: 10 A.M.
    TELECONFERENCE;
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    WITH
    PCB
    CLERK
    NOTIFYING
    PCB
    THAT
    THE BOARD
    HAS
    LISTED
    INCORRECT
    CONTACT
    INFORMATION
    ON
    ITS SERVICE
    LIST;
    FINALIZE
    AND
    FILE
    WITH
    THE
    PCB OUR
    MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS
    AND
    MEMO IN
    SUPPORT
    SEEKING
    DISMISSAL
    OF
    THE
    08-095
    ACTION;
    BEGIN
    DRAFTING
    INTERROGATORIES
    AN])
    REQUESTS
    TO
    PRODUCE
    FOR
    THE
    08-095 ACTION..
    07/08/08
    NAN
    CONTINUE
    DRAFTING
    2.80
    INTERROGATORIES AND
    REQUESTS
    TO
    PRODUCE.
    07109108
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    WITH YORKVLLLE’S
    6.20
    ATTORNEY
    (MICHELLE
    LAGROTTA);
    DRAFT
    EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO
    PCB
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    OFFERING
    TO
    GiVE
    A
    TWO-WEEK
    EXTENSION
    OF
    DECISION
    DEADLINE
    AND
    REQUESTING
    EXPEDITED
    DISCOVERY;
    DRAFT
    REQUESTS
    FOR
    PRODUCTION
    TO
    PROPOUND
    UPON
    CITY
    OF
    YORK
    VILLE
    IN
    PCB
    08-095
    AND
    CONTINUE
    DRAFTING
    INTERROGATORIES;
    REVIEW
    MOTION
    TO DISMISS
    FILED
    BY
    THE
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    IN
    PCB
    08-095.
    07/10/08
    NAN
    REVIEW
    EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    3.00
    RECEiVED
    FROM
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    RE:
    DISCOVERY
    AND
    HEARING
    SCHEDULE;
    DRAFT
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO
    IEPA
    COUNSEL
    MICHELLE
    RYAN
    RE: PRIOR
    EMAIL
    EXCHANGE
    BETWEEN
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    AND
    PARTIES’
    COUNSEL;
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    TO
    RYAN
    REQUESTING
    CONTACT
    4
    70573531v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    INFORMATION
    RESPOWD
    TO
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    INQUIRY
    RE:
    RYAN
    CONTACT
    INFORMATION;
    RESEARCH
    ADDITIONAL
    ARGUMENT
    RE:
    CITY’S
    LACK
    OF
    STANDING
    IN
    PCB 08-095
    FOR
    USE
    iN
    REPLY
    BRIEF
    TO
    PRESERVE
    THE
    ISSUE OF
    STANDING;
    REVISE
    WRITTEN
    DISCOVERY
    TO
    PROPOUND
    IN
    PCB 08-095
    PURSUANT
    TO
    SUGGESTIONS
    BY
    ATTORNEY
    RICK
    PORTER.
    07/10/08
    RSP
    REVIEW
    OF
    PRODUCTION
    RESPONSES
    -
    2.00
    AND
    REViEW
    OF INTERROGATORY
    ANSWERS;
    DRAFT
    E-MAIL
    MAKING
    EXTENSIVE
    RECOMMENDATIONS
    RE:
    AMENDMENTS
    TO SAME.
    07/14/08
    NAN
    REVIEW
    2
    EMAILS
    RECEIVED
    FROM
    .30
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    AND
    ONE
    EMAIL
    FROM
    IEPA
    COUNSEL;
    DRAFT
    BRIEF
    RESPONSE
    TO HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    EARLIER
    EMAIL
    REGARDING
    THE
    SCHEDULING
    OF
    THE NEXT
    TELECONFERENCE.
    07/16/08
    CFH
    ADDITIONAL
    TELEPHONE
    .30
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    VARIOUS
    PENDING
    MATTERS.
    07/16/08
    RSP
    REVIEW
    OF
    E-MAILS
    RE: REQUEST
    TO
    .50
    ADMIT
    AND
    PROVIDE
    ADVICE
    RE:
    SAME.
    07/03/08
    CFH
    YORKVILLE
    V.
    IEPA
    AN]) HAMMAN
    2.10
    FARMS
    - REVIEW
    OF MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS
    AND
    PREPARATION
    iN
    PCB
    MATTER
    08-095
    AND PREPARATION
    OF
    SUGGESTED
    REVISIONS
    TO
    SAME;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WiTH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME;
    REVIEW
    OF
    BRIEF
    IN SUPPORT
    OF MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS
    IN
    PCB
    08-095
    ACTION,
    PREPARATION
    OF
    REVISIONS
    TO
    SAME;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    RE: TELEPHONE
    5
    7057353
    lvJ
    90519
    66799

    Electronic Filing - Received,
    Clerk’s Office, September 5, 2008
    CALL
    RECEIVED FROM CHARLIE
    MURPHY.
    ADDITIONAL
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    FROM
    ASSISTANT
    ATTORNEY
    GENERAL
    ASSIGNED
    TO CASE CONCERNING
    REVISE
    PRE-ENFORCEMENT
    CONFERENCE
    DATE
    AN]) ISSUES
    TO
    BE
    DISCUSSED
    AT
    SAME; ADDITIONAL
    TELEPHONE CALL
    TO CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    CONCERNING SAME;
    ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE
    CALL
    TO
    ASSISTANT
    ATTORNEY
    GENERAL
    ASSIGNED
    TO
    CASE
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    07)03/08
    CFH
    .50
    07/07/08
    FH
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    FROM
    IEPA
    .30
    DIVISION OF LEGAL COUNSEL;
    SUBSEQUENT
    TELEPHONE
    CALL TO
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY.
    07/15/08
    NAN
    DRAFT
    DETAILED
    CORRESPONDENCE
    .20
    (ELECTRONIC) PROVIDING STATUS
    OF
    PCB
    08-095.
    07/17/08
    NAN
    REVIEW HEARING OFFICER’S ORDER
    2.80
    ENTERED
    ON
    JULY
    15, FORMALLY
    DESIGNATING AUG 14/15 AS
    THE
    HEARING DATES. RESEARCH
    FEASIBILITY
    OF SERVING
    REQUESTS
    TO ADMIT
    ON
    CITY OF
    YORKVILLE IN
    ADVANCE OF THE
    AUG.
    14.15
    HEARING.
    REVISE INTERROGATORIES
    AND
    REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
    PROPOUND
    ON CITY
    OF YORK
    VLLLE,
    INCORPORATING SUGGESTIONS
    FROM
    ATTORNEY
    RICK
    PORTER.
    DRAFT
    EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE TO
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY AND GEORGE
    MUELLER REQUESTING
    SUGGESTIONS
    FOR
    ADDITIONAL
    ITEMS TO REQUEST
    IN WRITTEN DISCOVERY.
    07/21/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF TWO PAGE
    HEARING
    .40
    OFFICER
    ORDER;
    E-MAIL
    COMMUNICATION TO CLIENT
    R:
    SAME; REVIEW
    OF NOTICE
    OF
    IIEA1JNG
    RECEIVED
    FROM
    HEARING
    OFFICER.
    07/21/08
    NAN
    —-
    REVIEW
    YORKYILLE’S
    RESPONSE
    .30
    BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
    THE MOTION
    6
    70573531v1 890519 66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office, September
    5,
    2008
    TO
    DISMISS
    FILED
    BY
    IEPA,
    AND
    YORK
    VILLE’S
    RESPONSE
    BRIEF
    IN
    OPPOSITION
    TO
    THE
    MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS FILED
    BY
    HAMMAN
    FARMS.
    ______
    07/22/08
    CFH
    PARTICIPATION
    IN
    TELEPHONIC
    120
    STATUS
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ALL
    PARTIES
    TO
    CASE;
    SUBSEQUENT
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    ATTORNEYS
    FOR
    HAMMAN
    FARMS
    RE:
    EXPEDITED
    DISCOVERY
    ISSUES;
    SUBSEQUENT
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    COUNSEL
    FOR
    IRPA
    CONCERN[NG
    SAME;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA NELSON
    RE:
    SAME;
    PREPARATION
    OF
    E-MAIL
    COMMUNICATION
    TO
    CLIENT
    AND
    CO
    COUNSEL
    CONCERNiNG
    SAME.
    07/22/08 --
    NAN
    REVIEW
    BOARD’S
    DECISION
    IN
    PCB
    04-
    1.20
    088
    (DES
    PLAINES
    WATERSHED
    CASE)
    CONCERNING
    LIMITATION
    ON
    DISCOVERY;
    DRAFT
    MEMO
    ADDRESSING
    TALKING
    POiNTS
    IN
    RE:
    THE
    USE
    OF
    DISCOVERY
    IN
    THE
    PENDING
    ACTION
    BY
    YORK
    VILLE
    IN
    08-095.
    07123/08
    CFH
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    FROM
    ATTORNEYS
    1.70
    FOR
    PETITIONER
    RE:
    PROPOSED
    DISCOVERY
    SCHEDULE;
    REVIEW
    OF
    RESEARCH
    MEMO
    FROM
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    ALLOWANCE
    OF
    DISCOVERY
    IN
    PERMIT
    APPEAL
    CASES
    AND
    DISCUSSION
    OF
    DES
    PLAINES
    WATER
    RIVER
    SHED
    ALLIANCE
    DECISION BY
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    AND
    ATTACHED
    MATERIALS
    CONCERNING
    SAME;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON CONCERNING
    SAME
    AND
    SUGGESTED
    MOTION
    FOR
    DETERMINATION
    BY
    HEARING
    OFFICER DISCOVERY
    AS
    APPROPRIATE
    .4;
    REVIEW
    OF
    SUBSEQUENT
    E-MAIL
    FROM
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME
    AND
    7
    70573531v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk’s
    Office, September 5, 2008
    ATTACHMENT
    TO
    SAME;
    PREPARATION
    OF RESPONSE TO
    SAME;
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    TO CHARLIE
    MURPHY
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    07/23/08
    CFH
    RBVIEW
    OF
    DRAFT
    MOTION FOR
    .50
    DETERMINATION
    ON
    DISCOVERY
    ISSUES
    AND COVER EMAIL
    FROM
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA NELSON
    AND
    PREPARATION
    OF REVISIONS
    TO
    SAME;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE WITH
    ASSOCIATE NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING FOLLOW-UP TO SAME.
    07/23/08
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION WITH
    -
    2.50
    CHARLIE
    MURPHY RE: STATUS
    AND
    RE:
    YORKVILLB’S RESPONSE
    BRIEFS.
    TWO
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATIONS
    WITH COUNSEL FOR YORKVJLLE
    CONCERNING DISCOVERY
    DEADLINES. REVIEW OF EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    FROM
    YORKVILLE’S
    COUNSEL RE:
    DISCOVERY. REVIEW EMAIL FROM
    GEORGE
    MUELLER RE: THE PROPOSED
    MOTION
    REQUESTING
    AN
    ORDER ON
    DISCOVERY. DRAFT MOTION
    CONCURRING
    WITH
    EPA’S
    POSITION
    ON
    DISCOVERY
    AND
    REQUESTING
    A
    RULING
    ON
    DISCOVERY FROM
    THE
    HEARING
    OFFICER.
    07/24/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    E4vLAIL
    RESPONSE
    FROM
    .70
    CO-COUNSEL GEORGE MUELLER
    CONCERNING
    OBJECTION TO
    DISCOVERY
    PROPOUNDED
    BY CITY OF
    YORKVILLB;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH ASSOCIATE NICOLA NELSON
    RB;
    PREPARATION
    OF SUPPLEMENT TO
    MOTION
    FOR DETERMINATION
    ON
    DISCOVERY
    ISSUES
    PREVIOUSLY
    FILED;
    TELEPHONE CALL FROM CO
    COUNSEL GEORGE MUELLER
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    07/24/0
    8
    CFH
    REVIEW OF VARIOUS ADDITIONAL
    .70
    CROSS B-MAILS BETWEEN CO
    COUNSEL GEORGE
    MUELLER AND
    ASSOCIATE NICOLA NELSON RE;
    THOUGHTS
    ON
    AND STRATEGY FOR
    8
    70573531v1
    890519 66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    -
    Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    FILING
    OF ADDITIONAL
    RESPONSES
    TO
    PETITIONER’S
    ASSERTIONS;
    ADDITIONAL
    E-MAil
    COMMUNICATION
    TO CO-COUNSEL
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    AND
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    _____
    07124108
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    ADDITIONAL
    E-MAIL
    2.30
    RESPONSE
    FROM
    CO-COUNSEL
    GEORGE
    MUELLER;
    REVIEW
    OF
    VARIOUS
    ADDITIONAL
    E-MAIL
    TRANSMISSIONS
    AND
    ATTACHMENTS
    FROM
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON;
    REVIEW
    OF
    AND
    PREPARATION
    OF
    ADDITIONAL
    SUGGESTED
    REVISIONS
    TO
    SUBSEQUENT
    VERSIONS
    OF
    SUPPLEMENT
    TO
    PRIOR
    MOTION
    FOR
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    RULING
    ON
    DISCOVERY
    MATTERS;
    OFFICE
    CONVERSATION WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME;
    ADDITIONAL
    EXTENDED
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    TEPA
    DIVISION
    OF LEGAL
    COUNSEL
    CONCERNING
    RECENT
    DEVELOPMENTS
    IN MATTER;
    REVIEW
    OF FAX
    TRANSMISSION OF
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    ORDER
    COMPELLING
    IEPA
    TO
    FILE
    RECORD
    IN
    MATTER
    AN]) SETTING
    DATES
    FOR
    BRIEFING
    OF
    HAMMAN
    FARMS;
    MOTION
    FOR
    DETERMINATION
    FO
    APPLICABILITY
    OF
    DISCOVERY;
    ADDiTIONAL TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    JEPA
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    ______
    07/24/08
    NAN
    -
    REVIEW
    INTERROGATORIES
    AND
    8.20
    REQUESTS
    TO PRODUCE SERVED
    ON
    HAMMAN
    FARMS
    BY
    CITY OF
    YORKVILLE;
    REVIEW
    MULTIPLE
    EMAILS
    FROM
    GEORGE
    MUELLER.
    RE:
    OBJECTIONS
    TO YORKVILLE’S
    DISCOVERY,
    OUR
    DRAFTING
    OF
    A
    REPLY
    IN SUPPORT
    OF
    THE
    MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS,
    AND
    REVISIONS
    TO
    OUR
    SUPPLEMENT
    TO
    THE
    MOTION
    FOR
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    ORDER.
    REVIEW
    INTERROGATORIES
    AND
    REQUESTS
    TO
    ________
    9
    70573531v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s Office,
    September
    5, 2008
    PRODUCE
    SERVED ON
    IEPA BY
    THE
    CITY
    OF YORKVILLE.
    DRAFT, AN])
    INCORPORATE
    OTHERS’
    REVISIONS
    TO
    A
    SUPPLEMENT
    TO
    HAMMAN
    FARMS’
    MOTION
    FOR HEAPING
    OFFICER’S
    ORDER,
    ATTACHING
    DISCOVERY
    SERVED
    BY
    YORKVILLE;
    BEGIN
    RESEARCHING
    AND
    DRAFTING REPLY
    BRIEF
    IN SUPPORT
    OF OUR MOTION
    TO
    DISMISS IN
    08-095.
    07/28/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    AND PREPARATION
    OF
    .70
    FURTHER
    REVISIONS
    TO
    FIRST
    DRAFT
    OF HAMMAN
    FARMS
    REPLY.
    BRIEF IN
    SUPPORT
    OF
    ITS MOTION
    TO DISMISS;
    OFFICE CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    07/28/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    TWO
    PAGE
    HEARING
    .90
    OFFICER ORDER
    CONCERNING
    DIRECTIVE
    TO
    IEPA TO FILE
    ADMINISTRATIVE
    RECORD MATTER
    AND
    ADDITIONAL
    DIRECT
    IVES
    CONCERNING
    DISCOVERY MATTERS
    AND
    RESPONSES
    TO
    MOTIONS
    TO
    LIMIT DISCOVERY;
    SUBSEQUENT
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    CO-COUNSEL
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    CONCERNING
    SAME
    AND VIEWS
    ON
    EXTENSION
    OF DECISION
    DEADLINE;
    TELEPHONE
    CALL TO
    CLIENT
    CONCERNING
    SAME AND
    RELATED
    ISSUES;
    TELEPHONE CALL
    TO
    PCB
    CONCERNING
    SAME.
    07/28/OS
    CFH
    PREPARATION
    OF
    EXTENSION
    OF
    .30
    DECISION DEADLINE
    AND
    COVER
    SHEET
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO
    CLERK
    OF
    ILLiNOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD.
    07/28/08
    NAN
    FINISH
    RESEARCHING AND
    DRAFTING
    8.40
    REPLY BRIEF
    IN SUPPORT
    OF
    OUR
    MOTION
    TO DISMISS IN
    PCB 08-095.
    DRAFT
    MOTION FOR LEAVE
    TO FILE
    A
    REPLY BRIEF.
    07/29/08
    CFH
    RETURN
    TELEPHONE
    CALL FROM
    PCB
    1.30
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    CONCERNING
    CLARIFICATION OF
    MATTER
    SET
    10
    70573531v1
    890519
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing
    - Received,
    Clerk’s
    Office,
    September
    5,
    2008
    FORTH
    IN
    7/24/08
    ORDER;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    RE:
    SAME
    AND
    DIRECTIONS FOR
    FILING
    RESPONSE
    TO
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    ORDER
    REQUESTING
    POSITION
    OF
    RESPONDENT’S
    UNLIMITED
    DISCOVERY;
    ADDITIONAL
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    RE:
    SAME;
    TELEPHONE
    CONVERSATION
    WITH
    IEPA
    RB: IEPA’S
    REFUSAL
    TO
    FILE
    THE
    ADMINISTRATIVE
    RECORD
    AND
    SUGGESTED
    ALTERNATIVE
    STRATEGY
    FOR
    RESPONDING
    TO
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    ORDER
    IN
    LIGHT
    OF
    AGENCY’S
    REFUSAL
    TO
    FEEL
    RECORD.
    07/29/08
    CFH
    ADDITIONAL
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    .40
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON.
    07/29/08
    NAN
    REVIEW
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S
    JULY
    24
    6.40
    ORDER IN
    PCB
    08-095
    CONCERNING
    LIMITATIONS
    ON
    DISCOVERY;
    TELECONFERENCE
    WITH
    IEPA
    COUNSEL
    MICHELLE RYAN
    R: THE
    JULY
    24
    ORDER
    BY
    THE
    HEARING
    OFFICER
    TO
    THE
    AGENCY
    REQUIRING
    THEM
    TO
    PRODUCE
    THE
    RECORD;
    STRATEGIZE,
    RESEARCH AND
    DRAFT
    THE
    BRIEF
    CONCERNING DISCOVERY
    AS
    ORDERED
    BY
    THE
    HEARING
    OFFICER, ADDRESSING
    THE
    QUESTIONS
    OF
    INFORMATION
    THAT
    IS
    “RELEVANT,
    DISCOVERABLE,
    AN])
    ADMISSIBLE
    IN
    THIS
    PROCEEDING
    THAT
    WAS
    NOT
    BEFORE
    THE
    AGENCY
    AT
    TIlE
    TIME
    THE
    PERMIT
    WA ISSUES.”
    DRAFT
    EMAIL
    CORRESPONDENCE
    TO
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    PROVIDING
    A
    STATUS
    OF
    RECENT
    DEVELOPMENTS
    IN
    THE
    PCB
    CASE.
    07/30/08
    CFH
    REVIEW
    OF
    FINAL
    DRAFT
    OF
    HAMMAN
    .70
    FARMS’
    RESPONSE TO HEARING
    OFFICER
    ORDER
    REQUESTING
    PROPOSED
    SCOPE
    OF
    DISCOVERY;
    OFFICE
    CONFERENCE
    WITH
    ASSOCIATE
    NICOLA
    NELSON
    RE:
    11
    70573531v1
    S9O59
    66799

    Electronic
    Filing - Received,
    ClerWs
    Office, September
    5, 2008
    SUGGESTED
    FURTHER
    REVISIONS
    TO
    SAME
    AND
    RELATED
    MATTERS.
    07/30108
    NAN
    INCORPORATE
    CHANGES
    PROPOSED
    -
    .9O
    BY
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    INTO REPLY
    BRIEF
    IN PCB
    08-095
    INCORPORATE
    CHANGES
    PROPOSED
    BY
    GEORGE
    MUELLER
    INTO
    BRIEF
    IN RESPONSE
    TO
    HEARING
    OFFICER’S ORDER
    IN
    PCB 08-
    095.
    07/31/08
    NAN
    TELEPHONE
    CALL
    WITH
    CLERK
    OF
    .10
    THE
    PCB
    RE:
    FILING
    PROBLEMS
    IN PCB
    08-095.
    TOTAL
    HRS.
    9130
    CFH = CHARLES
    IIELSTEN
    TOTAL
    HOURS
    BILLED
    20.30
    @
    $325 = $6,597.50
    NAN = MCOLA
    NELSON
    TOTAL
    HOURS
    BILLED 68.50
    @
    $190 = $13,01500
    RSP =
    RICHARD
    PORTER
    TOTAL
    HOURS BILLED
    2.50
    (}
    285
    = $712.50
    GRAND TOTAL
    HOURS BILLED
    $20,325.09
    DISBURSEMENTS:
    06/12/08
    2
    Copies
    @
    .23
    .46
    06/12/08
    -—
    14
    Copies
    @
    .23
    3.22
    06/12/08
    Westlaw
    online
    research
    .62
    performed
    by
    Nicola Nelson
    06/16/08
    Westlaw
    online
    research
    6.75
    performed
    by Nicola Nelson
    6126/08
    Westlaw
    online research
    by
    10.58
    Nicola
    Nelson
    Phone
    Charges
    9,74
    TOTAL
    -
    $31.37
    07/02/08
    2pagefax.75
    1.50
    07/03/08
    — 3pagefax@.75
    2.25
    07/07/08
    39
    copies@
    .23
    8.97
    07/07/08
    l4pagefax@.75
    10.50
    07/07/08
    l4pagefax.75
    10.50
    07/07/08
    Westlaw
    online
    research
    by
    9.57
    Nicola
    Nelson
    07/08/08
    26
    page
    fax
    @
    .75
    19.50
    07/09/08
    4 copies
    .23
    .92
    07/09/08
    40
    copies
    .23
    9.20
    07/09/08
    l2copies©.23
    2.76
    07/09/08
    -
    2lpagefax.75
    - 15,75
    12
    70573531v1
    890519
    66799

    E
    (J’
    00
    00
    00
    0
    w
    0
    00
    0
    00
    0
    00
    0
    cJ
    0
    00
    0
    1.’J
    0
    00
    0
    0
    00
    00
    0
    —I
    1.
    CC
    0
    -4
    0
    00
    C
    O
    0
    0
    0
    00
    0
    I
    00
    a’
    0
    CO
    -4
    CO
    Cu
    Cu
    0
    L)
    -4
    Cu
    0
    Cu
    00
    Cu
    0
    I
    o
    -
    Cu
    C’,
    I
    —I
    C
    -a
    (.4
    (.9
    QG
    0
    0’
    -a
    ‘0
    m
    m
    C,
    .‘
    0
    C,
    •11
    0
    C,
    0
    CD
    C,
    CD
    0
    C,
    0
    Co
    CD
    0
    9
    0
    •1
    ci
    ‘.3
    e
    0
    00
    -
    0’
    W
    ‘-
    -Lbo
    t.1
    ci
    ‘3
    0
    0
    CJi
    -‘
    3
    C
    -
    —)
    .
    Q
    .
    .
    ,—‘
    .
    COO
    00
    00

    Back to top