RECEIVED
CLERK'S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
N!ov
0 8
2007
FOX MORAINE, LLC
?
)
Petitioner,?
)
v.
?
)
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY )
COUNCIL
Respondent.
?
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
nilutcor
Control Board
PCB No. 07-146
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
?
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this 8
th
day of November, 2007, Leo P.
Dombrowski, one of the attorneys for Respondent, United City of Yorkville, filed the
original and four (4) copies of the attached
United City of Yorkville's Motion
to Compel Return of Document Inadvertently Disclosed by Respondent,
with the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a copy of which is herewith served upon
you.
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED CerrY
YORKVILLE
By:?
One of their AttorneysIttgoi
k
Anthony G. Hopp
Thomas I. Matyas
Leo P. Dombrowski
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON
LLP
225 West Wacker Drive, 30th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: (312) 201-2000
Fax: (312) 201-2555
hopp(igwildman.00111
matyas@wildman.corn
dombrowski@wildman.COT11
This Filing is Submitted on 100% Post-consumer Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Susan Hardt, a non-attorney, certify that I served a copy of the foregoing
Notice
of Filing and United
City
of Yorkville's Motion to Compel Return of Document
Inadvertently Disclosed by Respondent,
to the Hearing Officer and all Counsel of
Record listed on the attached Service list, by sending it via Electronic Mail and First
Class Mail on November 8, 2007, before 5:00 p.m.
A
-Coat-- C6i-CZAI
[x]?
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to ILL. REV. STAT.
CHAP. 110 – SEC 1-109, I certify that the statements set forth
herein are true and correct.
This Filing is Submitted on 100% Post-consumer Recycled Paper
Fox Moraine, LLC v. United City of Yorkville
PCB No. 07-146
SERVICE LIST
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
hallorab@ipcb.state.il.us
George Mueller
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609 Etna Road
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
george@muelleranderson.com
Charles Helston
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
chelsten@hinshawlaw.com
Michael S. Blazer
Jeep & Blazer, LLC
24 N. Hillside Avenue, Suite A
Hillside, IL 60162
mblazer@enviroatty.com
Eric C. Weiss
Kendall County State's Attorney
Kendall County Courthouse
807 John Street
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
eweis@co.kendall.il.us
This Filing is Submitted on 100% Post-consumer Recycled Paper
FOX MORAINE, LLC
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R
c
ec
LE
Ric's
eiv=
OFF/CE
NOV 0 8
200?
STATE
P
ControI
OF
/um
"Liti°n
R
—oard
v.
UNITED CITY
COUNCIL
Petitioner, )
OF YORKVILLE, CITY )
Respondent. )
PCB No. 07-146
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
MOTION TO COMPEL RETURN OF DOCUMENT
INADVERTENTLY DISCLOSED BY RESPONDENT
Respondent, the United City of Yorkville ("Yorkville"), by its undersigned attorneys and
pursuant to 35 III. Admin. Code §§ 101.500 and 101.502, hereby requests that the Hearing
Officer compel Petitioner ("Fox Moraine") and all recipients to return a confidential legal bill
that is protected under the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine and destroy all
copies. In support of its Motion, Respondent states as follows:
BACKGROUND
1.
Yorkville hired the law firm of Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP to provide
it legal advice regarding the proposed siting of a landfill and to represent it if an appeal were
filed.
2.
Under Yorkville's Landfill Siting Ordinance, Fox Moraine is required to
reimburse Yorkville's costs associated with the landfill siting process, including attorney's fees.
3.
From time to time, Yorkville has sent Fox Moraine copies of invoices or other
material reflecting siting costs incurred by Yorkville.
See
Olson Affidavit at ¶ 3, attached as
Exhibit A.
This Filing is Submitted on 100% Post-consumer Recycled Paper
4.
On or about August 15, 2007, Mr. Bart Olson, Yorkville's Assistant City
Administrator, sent several landfill-related invoices to Mr. Don Hamman at Fox Moraine. One
of the invoices was a bill from Wildman Harrold, dated June 15, 2007, detailing tasks undertaken
on behalf of Yorkville during Wildman's first month of representation (the "Invoice"). This is
the only Wildman Harrold invoice Yorkville has sent to Fox Moraine. Olson Affidavit at
In
4-5,
8.
5.
Olson had not been told to send any Wildman invoices to Fox Moraine, nor did he
appreciate the possible significance of sharing a law firm invoice. He had no intention of
waiving any privilege or protection that may attach to the Invoice. Olson Affidavit at 6-7.
6.
On September 21, 2007, Wildman Harrold learned that the Invoice had been
included in the mailing to Mr. Hamman. Olson Affidavit at
¶
9.
7.
By letter dated September 28, 2007, Wildman Harrold informed Mr. George
Mueller, attorney for Fox Moraine, that the Invoice had been inadvertently sent and demanded its
return and the destruction of any copies. (Sept. 28, 2007 letter is attached as Exhibit B.)
8.
By letter dated October 10, 2007, Mr. Mueller informed Wildman Harrold that
Fox Moraine refused to return the Invoice. (Oct. 10, 2007 letter is attached as Exhibit C.)
9.
On October 29, 2007, Fox Moraine produced documents in response to
Yorkville's First Set of Document Requests. Although not responsive to any document request, a
copy of the Invoice was included in Fox Moraines response and served on the Hearing Officer
and all counsel.
10.
By e-mail dated October 30, 2007, Wildman Harrold notified the Hearing Officer
and all counsel that despite Yorkville's notification as to the protected and privileged nature of
the Invoice, Fox Moraine had nevertheless produced the Invoice in its answers to document
requests. Wildman Harrold asked that the recipients destroy any copies of the Invoice
2
inappropriately received from Fox Moraine. (Wildman Oct. 30, 2007 e-mail is attached as
Exhibit D.)
11.
Michael Blazer, on behalf of Kendall County, responded that he had assumed the
Invoice had been inadvertently produced and had deleted it. (Blazer Oct. 30, 2007 e-mail is
attached as Exhibit E.)
ARGUMENT
12.
The Hearing Officer has the authority to rule on motions related to the inadvertent
disclosure of documents.
See, e.g., Saline County Landfill, Inc. v. Illinois EPA,
PCB No. 04-117,
2004 Ill. Env. LEXIS 255 (May 6, 2004) (upholding, in part, Hearing Officer's ruling related to
inadvertently disclosed documents). For the reasons set forth below, the Invoice is privileged and
Yorkville's inadvertent and unintentional disclosure did not waive this protection.
A.
The Invoice Is Protected
as
an Attorney-Client Communication and Is also
Privileged under the Attorney Work Product Doctrine.
13.
The attorney client privilege is applicable to "communications made in
confidence by a client seeking legal advice of any kind to a professional legal advisor acting in
that capacity."
Regan v. Garfield Ridge Trust & Savings Bank,
220 III. App. 3d 1078, 1090 (2nd
Dist. 1991). Billing records "may contain explanations for legal fees and may indicate the type
of work done or matters discussed between the attorney and client."
People ex rel. Ulrich v.
Stuckel,
294 111. App. 3d 193, 201 (1 st
Dist. 1997). As such, bills containing explanations for
legal fees may reveal the substance of confidential attorney client discussions and are subject to
the attorney-client privilege.
Id.,
citing
Matter of Witness Before the Special March 1980 Grand
Jury,
729 F.2d 489, 495 (7th Cir. 1984);
see also In re Grand Jury Witness,
695 F.2d 359, 362
(9th Cir. 1982) (the attorney-client privilege protects attorney's bills, ledgers, statements, time
records and the like which reveal the nature of services provided).
3
14.
The Invoice contains numerous explanations for legal fees that reveal the subject
matter and direction of discussions between Yorkville and its attorneys. Further, many entries
reveal the substance and nature of work conducted in preparing legal advice for Yorkville. As a
result, the contents of the Invoice are protected by the attorney-client privilege.'
15.
Additionally, Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(2) provides that "material prepared by
or for a party in the preparation" for litigation is protected work product when it contains the
"theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans" of a party's attorney.
See also Mlynarski v.
Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Ctr.,
213 Ill. App. 3d 427, 432 (1st 1991). The work-
product doctrine is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare his case and
to preclude a less diligent adversary from taking undue advantage of the former's efforts.
Waste
Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
144 Ill. 2d 178, 198 (Ill. 1991).
16.
During Wildman's first month of representing Yorkville, it was unknown whether
an appeal would be filed following Yorkville's approval or denial of Fox Moraine's application.
However, appeals are common in landfill siting matters either by the applicant or by third-party
objectors, no matter what the decision of the local siting authority.
See
107.200(a & b) (siting
applicants may appeal denial of application; third-party objectors may appeal approval of
application).
17.
The Invoice reveals the theories, mental impressions, and litigation plans of
Yorkville's attorneys should an appeal be filed. It is therefore also protected under the work
product doctrine.
As noted, the Invoice has already been served on the Hearing Officer. If the Hearing Officer no longer
has a copy, one will be made available for
in camera
inspection.
4
B.
?
Yorkville's Inadvertent Disclosure of the Invoice Did Not Constitute Waiver.
18.
It is undisputed that an employee of Yorkville mailed a copy of the Invoice to Fox
Moraine. Mr. Olson's actions however, were taken without knowing that the Invoice was
protected and without the intent to waive, on behalf of his employer, the protections afforded by
the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Submittal of the Invoice in un-
redacted form was inadvertent and unintentional.
19.
Under either the subjective or balancing tests applied by Illinois courts to
inadvertent and unintentional disclosure of protected materials, Yorkville did not waive
protection of the Invoice.
See People v. Murry,
305 Ill. App. 3d 311 (2
nd
Dist. 1999);
Dalen v.
Ozite Corp.,
230 III. App. 3d 18 (2'd Dist. 1992).
20.
In
Murry,
the Illinois Appellate Court stated "inadvertent disclosure can never
result in a waiver of privilege because the client had no intention of waiving the privilege, and a
client must knowingly waive the" protection. 305 111. App. 3d at 316.
21.
The package in which the Invoice was included was assembled by a Yorkville
employee without direction or authority to include the un-redacted Invoice or to waive any
privilege associated with it. Since the City employee had no authority to waive the privilege,
Yorkville cannot be found to have waived the protections afforded by the work-product doctrine
or attorney-client privilege.
22.
In
Dalen,
the Illinois Appellate Court applied a balancing test to the inadvertent
disclosure, by a client, of its attorney's work product. The
Dalen
court considered the following
factors: (1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent disclosure; (2) the time taken
to rectify the error; (3) the scope of discovery; (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) the
overriding issue of fairness. 230 Ill. App. 3d at 28.
5
23.
The circumstances here show that Yorkville more than satisfies the requirements
of the balancing test:
a.
Employees of Yorkville who are in positions of decision making
authority are informed of the confidential nature of legal
communications and documents. In this limited instance, a top
down communication of the confidential nature of the Invoice
failed to occur.
b.
Yorkville's attorneys acted rapidly to recover the inadvertently
disclosed material as soon as they learned of the disclosure.
c.
The inadvertent initial disclosure was done by an employee acting
without knowledge as to the protected nature of the Invoice.
d.
The inadvertent and unintentional disclosure was limited to a
handful of pages.
e.
It would be fundamentally unfair to permit Petitioner to keep the
Invoice because it reveals the subject matter and direction of
discussions between Yorkville and its attorneys and further reveals
the theories, mental impressions, and litigation plans of Yorkville's
attorneys.2
C.
?
Because the Invoice Is Protected and Its Disclosure Did Not Waive Protection, It
Must Be Returned to Yorkville and All Copies Must Be Destroyed.
24. The Invoice submitted by the attorneys for Yorkville contains substantial
information protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
Yorkville neither intended, nor demonstrated an intent, to purposefully disclose the un-redacted
Invoice to Fox Moraine. Yorkville's inadvertent disclosure did not waive protections for the
Invoice. It is therefore appropriate to order the return of the inadvertently disclosed Invoice and
2
Fox Moraine was made aware of the unintended disclosure on September 28, 2007. Despite its
knowledge that the status of the Invoice was in dispute, Fox Moraine, acting in bad faith, disclosed the
protected material in its responses to Yorkville's first set of document requests. Yorkville's document
requests were limited to items that supported Fox Moraine's petition for review and its contention that
Yorkville City Council members conducted an unfair hearing or acted with bias. No part of the Invoice is
responsive to Yorkville's document requests. Under the circumstances, Fox Moraine's production of the
Invoice was mean-spirited and unprofessional.
6
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY
COUNCIL
By:
destruction of all copies.
See, e.g., Jaffe v. Household Intl , Inc.,
237 F.R.D. 176, 185 (N.D. Ill.
2006) (where court granted motion to return inadvertently produced documents).
WHEREFORE, Respondent, United City of Yorkville, respectfully requests that the
Hearing Officer grant its motion and order the return or destruction of all physical and electronic
copies of the Invoice in the possession of the Petitioner and all recipients, and including:
1)
Mr. Don Hamman and any other recipients at Fox Moraine;
2)
Mr. George Mueller and any other recipients at his law firm;
3)
Mr. Charles Helsten and any other recipients at his law firm;
4)
Mr. Michael Blazer and any other recipients at his law firm;
5)
Mr. Eric Weis and any other recipients at the office of the Kendall County
State's Attorney;
6)
The Hearing Officer and any other recipients at the Board;
(collectively, the "Recipients") and furthering ordering the Recipients to retrieve the Invoice
from all persons who have been provided with the Invoice or a copy thereof, if any additional
such persons exist, and for further relief as the Hearing Officer deems just and fair.
Respectfully submitted,
One of their Attorneys
Dated: November 8, 2007
Anthony G. Hopp
Thomas I. Matyas
Leo P. Dombrowski
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON
LLP
225 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312)
201-2000
Facsimile: (312)
201-2555
hopp@wildman.com
matyas@wildman.com
dombrowski@wildman.com
7
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FOX MORAINE, LLC
Petitioner,
PCB No. 07-146
v.
?
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY
COUNCIL
Respondent.
AFFIDAVIT OF BART OLSON IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL RETURN OF INADVERTENTLY DISCLOSED DOCUMENT
Bart Olson, being first duly sworn, deposes and states under oath as follows:
I am over 18 years of age. I make this Affidavit upon my own personal
knowledge and I believe that I can testify to each and every fact that is contained in this Affidavit
under oath. I have carefully reviewed the facts in this Affidavit and state under oath that all of
the facts in this Affidavit are true and correct. I have had sufficient time to read, review,
consider, and edit this Affidavit and I am signing this Affidavit with the understanding that it
will be used in support of a Motion to Compel being filed by the United City of Yorkville
("Yorkville") in this landfill appeal..
2.
I have been the Assistant City Administrator for Yorkville since March 2006.
3.
On two occasions, I have sent bills showing costs and expenses incurred by
Yorkville related to Fox Moraine's landfill siting application to Fox Moraine for payment. The
first was in June 2007 and the second was in August 2007.
4 As to the second occasion, in or around August of 2007, I received a request from
Fox Moraine asking that recent bills related to its landfill siting application be forwarded to it
OFFICIAL SEAL
LISA PICKERING
NOTARY PUBLIC • STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:12/13M8
for payment. On or around August 15, 2007, I mailed a package of bills to Mr. Don Hamman at
Fox Moraine.
5.
Inc
luded in this package of bills was an invoice from the law firm of Wildman,
Harrold, Allen & Dixon L,L,P, dated June 15, 2007, detailing legal services rendered on behalf of
Yorkville with respect to Fox Moraine's landfill siting application (the "Invoice").
6
I
had not been instructed to forward the Invoice to Fox Moraine, and I did this
without the knowledge of Wildman Harrold or the Yorkville City Council.
7.
I was not aware of either the confidential nature of, or the significance of
disclosing, the Invoice to any person or entity, including Fox Moraine. I had no intention of
waiving any privilege or protection that may be associated with the Invoice.
8.
This is the only invoice from Wildman Harrold that I have sent to Fox Moraine.
9, On
September 21, 2007 I informed Wildman Harrold that I had mailed a copy of
the Invoice to Don Hamman at Fox Moraine.
AFFIANT SAYETH FURTHER NOT.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
BEFORE ME THIS 8
th
DAY OF
November, 2007
c
M •
NOTARY PUBLIC
-7-
Exhibit B
Wildman, Harrold, Allen 8 Dixon
LLF
225 West Wacker Drive
Chicago. Winces 60604-1229
312-201 2000
312201-2555 fax
www.svildmanharrold co
le
September 28, 2007
Wildhiall
azry
Id
Aiternert and rmenvelort
VIA EMAIL and
REGULAR MAIL
Mr. George Mueller
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609 Etna Road
Ottawa. Illinois 61350
george@muellerandemon com
Re: Return of Invoice
Dear Mr. Mueller
We have just learned that on or about August 15, 2007, our client, the United City of
Yorkville ("Yorkville"). sent several invoices to Don Hammon at Fox Moraine, EEC relating to
the landfill siting application. One of the invoices was an on-redacted copy of a legal bill
submitted by Wildman Harrold to Yorkville (the 'Invoice"). The Invoice was sent inadvertently
and without knowledge as to the possible significance of sharing a law firm invoice. It contains
confidential information that is protected under the attorney work product and attorney-client
privileges.
The accidental disclosure by Yorkville did not waive any privilege.
See,?
Peopk
Murry,
305 111. App. 3d 311. 316 (2" Dist. 1999) ("[Ijnadvertent disclosure can never result in a
waiver of the privilege because the client had no intention of waiving the privilege, and a client
must knowingly waive the privilege"). Additionally, if Mr. Hammon has not forwarded the
Invoice to you, you are. hereby placed on notice of its confidential nature and the inadvertence of
its disclosure. You are prohibited from reviewing or using its contents.
We ask that
you
or Mr. (lam:nail return the Invoice immediately to the undersigned, that
no one make any copies, and that any existing copies be destroyed. We also ask that you
confon that you have followed the requests in this letter by Wednesday, October 3, 2007. If Fox
Moraine does not agree with our requests, we will present this matter to the Hearing Officer.
Mr. George Mueller
September 28, 2007
l
a
rge 2
We
look forward to your cooperation on this matter, Please Contact me if you
have arty
questions.
Very truly yours,
WILT?
BROW, ALLEN & DIXON LI)
It-
I t-
r
Leo P Dombrowski
LP /sh
Exhibit C
MUELLER
ANDERSON
PC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
609 Etna Road
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
Telephone (815) 431-1500
Facsimile (815) 431-1501
George Mueller
Trena'
Pinnell Anderson
October 10, 2007
Mr. Leo Dombrowski
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP
225 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606-1229
RE: City of Yorkville v. Donald Hamman
Kendall County, Illinois 2007 OV 43
Dear Mr. Dombrowski:
I am in receipt of your letter of September 28, 2007, asking for return of an
invoice sent to my client on August 15, 2007. I disagree with you that the invoice
was sent inadvertently as it was intentionally sent to Mr. Hamman with a request
for payment. It would appear therefore, that your client, the City of Yorkville,
waived any privilege that might have existed by requesting payment for this
invoice and enclosing a copy of the same as documentation in support of the
request. I further believe that People v. Murry is not authority for your proposition
as the case was not decided on the issue of whether inadvertent disclosures can
be a waiver of privilege.
I also fail to understand what this issue has to do with the hearing officer
(presumably the hearing officer in the pending PCB appeal). This is not an issue
in the Pollution Control Board case.
Lastly, your letter fails to state whether the City of Yorkville is still looking
for payment of this by Mr. Hamman. Can I assume from your failure to address
this issue that the city of Yorkville has abandoned its request for payment?
Very truly yours,
Mueller Anderson,
eo 2
e Mueller
GM/st
cc: Don Hamman
george@muelleranderson.com?
♦
?
tpa@muelleranderson.com
Exhibit D
Dombrowski, Leo
From:
?
Dombrowski, Leo
Sent:?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:37
PM
To:?
'Charles F.
Helsten';
'bhalloran@atg.statell.us t, 'mblazer@enviroatty.com';
Igmueller21@sbcglobal.net,
imichael.roth@icemiller.cont;
'eweis@co.kendall.itus'
Cc:?
Matyas, Thomas; Hopp, Anthony
Subject:
?
RE:
Fox Moraine LLC v. United City of Yorkville, City Council
(PCB No. 07-146) Answers to Discovery
Hearing Officer and Counsel:
In September 2007, we learned that our client, the United City of Yorkville, sent several invoices to Don Hammen
at Fox Moraine, LLC relating to the landfill siting application. One of the invoices was an un-redacted copy of a legal
bill submitted by Wildman Harrold to Yorkville. The unredacted invoice was sent inadvertently and without any intent to
waive any applicable privilege. The invoice was intended to be confidential and is protected under the attorney work
product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege.
We quickly notified counsel for Fox Moraine of the inadvertent disclosure of the invoice and demanded its return.
Despite knowledge of the confidential nature of the document and its inadvertent production, Fox Moraine has
inappropriately refused to return it.
As part of its answers to the City's document requests, Fox Moraine produced the invoice, despite the City's claim
of privilege. We ask that you destroy any electronic or paper copies of the invoice you have inappropriately received
from Fox Moraine. We thank you for your cooperation and further ask that you confirm that you have complied with this
request.
We will present this matter to the Hearing Officer for resolution as soon as possible.
Leo Dombrowski
Leo P. Dombrowski
Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP
225 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-1229
(312) 201-2562 (phone)
(312) 416-4735 (direct fax #)
(312) 201-2555
?
(firm fax #)
dombrowski@wildman.com
(Asst. - Sue Hardt)
(312) 201-2266
?From: Original
Joan Lane
Message[nailto:jlane@hinshawlaw.com] ?
On Behalf Of Charles F. Helsten
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:16 PM
1
To: bhalloran@atg.state.il.us; mblazer@enviroatty.com; gmueller2l@sbcglobal.net; michael.roth@icemiller.com;
eweis@co.kendall.il.us; Dombrowski, Leo
Subject: Fox Moraine LLC v. United City of Yorkville, City Council (PCB No. 07-146) Answers to Discovery
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED
Gentlemen:
Please find attached hereto Petitioner's Answers to United City of
Yorkville's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Document
Requests.
Charles F. Helsten
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
Phone:?
815-490-4906
Fax:
?
815-490-4901
cheisten@hinsnawlaw.com
Exhibit E
Dombrowski, Leo
From:
?
Michael S. Blazer [mblazer@enviroatty.com]
Sent:?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:43 PM
To:?
Dombrowski, Leo; Charles F. Helsten; bhalloran@atg.state.il.us;
gmueller21©sbcglobal.net;
michael.roth@icemiller.com;
eweis©co.kendall.il.us
Cc:?
Matyas, Thomas; Hopp, Anthony
Subject:
?
RE: Fox Moraine LLC v. United City of Yorkville, City Council (PCB No. 07-146) Answers to Discovery
I assumed as much and have deleted it.
Sent via wireless e-mail
Michael S. Blazer
mblazer@enviroatty.com
?From:
Original
"Dombrowski,
MessageLeo" ?
<dombrowski@wildman.com>
To: "Charles F. Helsten" <chelsten@hinshawlaw.com> ; bhalloran@atg.state.il.us; mblazer@enviroatty.com; gmueller21
@sbcglobal.net; michael.roth@icemiller.com; eweis@co.kendall.il.us
Cc: "Matyas, Thomas" <matyas@wildman.com>; "Hopp, Anthony" <Hopp@wildman.com>
Sent: 10/30/07 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: Fox Moraine LLC v. United City of Yorkville, City Council (PCB No. 07-146) Answers to Discovery
Hearing Officer and Counsel:
In September 2007, we learned that our client, the United City
of Yorkville, sent several invoices to Don Hamman at Fox Moraine, LLC
relating to the landfill siting application. One of the invoices was an
an-redacted copy of a legal bill submitted by Wildman Harrold to
Yorkville. The unredacted invoice was sent inadvertently and without
any intent to waive any applicable privilege. The invoice was intended
to be confidential and is protected under the attorney work product
doctrine and the attorney-client privilege.
We quickly notified counsel for Fox Moraine of the inadvertent
disclosure of the invoice and demanded its return. Despite knowledge of
the confidential nature of the document and its inadvertent production,
Fox Moraine has inappropriatel
y
refused to return it.
As part of its answers to the City's document requests, Fox
Moraine p
roduced the invoice, despite the City's claim of privilege. We
ask that you destroy any electronic or paper copies of the invoice you
have inappropriately received from Fox Moraine. We thank you for your
cooperation and further ask that you confirm that you have complied with
this request.
1
We will present this matter to the Hearing Officer for
resolution as soon as possible.
Leo Dombrowski
Leo P. Dombrowski
Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP
225 West Wacker Drive
Chicago,
?
IL 60606-1229
(312) 201-2562 (phone)
(312) 416-4735
(direct
fax
?
#)
(312) 201-2555
(firm
fax?
#)
dombrowski@wildman.com
(Asst. - Sue Hardt)
(312) 201-2266
?From: Original
Joan Lane
Message[mailto:jlane@hinshawlaw.com] ?
On Behalf Of Charles F.
Helsten
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:16 PM
To: bhalloran@atg.state.il.us; mblazer@enviroatty.com;
gmueller2l@sbcglobal.net; michael.roth@icemiller.com;
eweis@co.kendall.il.us; Dombrowski, Leo
Subject: Fox Moraine LLC v. United City of Yorkville, City Council (PCB
No. 07-146) Answers to Discovery
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED
Gentlemen:
Please find attached hereto Petitioner's Answers to United City of
Yorkville's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Document
Requests.
Charles F. Helsten
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
Phone: 815-490-4906
Fax:
?
815-490-4901
chelsten@hinshawlaw.com
DISCLAIMER:
This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner. This
communication does not form any contractual obligation on behalf of the sender or Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any tax advice in this message is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used by a taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Please consult your tax
attorney regarding
the form of tax advice that may be relied upon to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.
3