394/SVA
    MBJ
    Atty. No. 6208987
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    )
    RECEIVED
    by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
    )
    CLERICS OFFICE
    ofthe State ofIllinois
    .
    DEC 052005
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    V.
    )
    PCB 96-98
    Pollution Control Board
    )
    SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC.,
    )
    an Illinois Corporation, EDWIN L. FREDERICK,
    JR., Individually and as Owner and President of
    Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc., and
    )
    RICHARD J. FREDERICK, Individually
    and as Owner and Vice President of Skokie
    )
    Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT. EDWIN L. FREDERICK JR., TO THE
    COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT REQUEST TO RESPONDENTS REGARDING
    COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION
    NOW COMES the Respondent, EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., by his attorneys,
    David O’Neill, P.C. and Michael B. Jawgiel, P.C., and in response to the Complainant’s
    Document Request to the Respondent regarding Complainant’s Fee Petition, states as
    follows:
    1.
    A daily accounting ofall hours, as well as the corresponding activity
    performed, for each attorney that has provide legal services to Respondents related to this
    case, regardless of whether all such hours and activities were actually billed to
    Respondents.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time ofthe hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the ease of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its
    expenses at issue in this matter.
    2.
    All time records for each attorney that has provided legal services to
    Respondents related to this case.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time ofthe hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its
    expenses at issue in this matter.
    3.
    A daily accounting of all costs incurred by each attorney that has provided
    legal services to Respondents related to this ease, regardless ofwhether all such costs
    were actually billed to Respondents.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time ofthe hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the ease of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its
    expenses at issue in this matter.
    4.
    All invoices for attorney’s fees from Respondents’ attorneys related to this
    case.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time of the hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company. Inc., its
    cxpenses at issue in this matter.
    5.
    All invoices for costs incurred by each of Respondents’ attorneys related
    to this case.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time ofthe hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case ofSkokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the ease of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its
    expenses at issue in this matter.
    6.
    A daily accounting of all costs directly incurred by Respondents related to
    this case.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time of the hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its
    expenses at issue in this matter.
    7.
    All documents identified, relating to, and/or referred to in Respondents’ or
    Respondents’ attorneys’ answers to Complainant’s Interrogatories to Respondent
    Regarding Complainant’s Fee Petition.
    Answer:
    Objection. This interrogatory is not calculated to be to admissible
    evidence at the time ofthe hearing. Furthermore, this interrogatory asks for irrelevant
    information and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
    Respondent’s attorneys. The attorneys for the Respondent has not placed his or, in the
    case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue nor has the
    Respondent placed his or, in the case of Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc., its
    expenses at issue in this matter.
    DEC-3-2005 12:11 FROP1U.AKE SICRE HRRLEY DA 18476629926
    10:617737741513
    P:2’3
    D.~ 01 2005 1:57PM
    HP
    LF1SLRJCT 3330
    ) 55
    STATE OP ILLmIOIS
    )
    COUNTY OF COOK
    )
    EDWIN L. FRFThERICK, JR.. being
    first duly
    sworn
    on o~tb,deposes and
    states that
    Tic
    is aRe~pondetitin
    the abovo.captoncd matter
    thnt
    he bn
    rend
    tUe
    foregoing document, and
    the
    answers
    rnnde heicki are
    true.
    correct and
    complete
    E~
    the
    boot of)S ktowlcdgc and belier.
    SU~sCRTh~Dand
    SWORN to before
    re
    this
    a
    day
    ~\ppp~
    ~
    __
    NOTARY PUBLIC
    L3
    Dkivid O’NeUI and
    Michzei
    0.
    hwgiel, P.C.
    Attorneys for Respondent
    3487 Mi!w~ukteAvenue
    Chicago
    Ulbois 60630
    flPXCIALS~AL”
    S
    NOTARY
    COLIC-ENS.
    PL)91IC 5t41~
    PERRY
    OF ILLINOiS
    j
    f
    p.2
    2005
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    1, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached RESPONSE OF THE
    RESPONDENT, EDWIN
    L.
    FREDERICK, JR., TO COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT
    REQUEST TO RESPONDENTS REGARDING COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION by hand
    delivery on December 5, 2005, upon the following party:
    Mitchell Cohen
    Environmental Bureau
    Assistant Attorney General
    Illinois
    Attorney General’s Office
    188 W. Randolph, 20th Floor
    Chicago, IL 60601
    bayicr’ ONeill
    NOTARY SEAL
    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this ~
    dayof
    ~
    ,20 ~
    C
    Mtary Publi
    RITA
    LOMBAgj~
    ~ NOTARy PU&jc STATE OF lW~o~~
    1
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    0~FIce
    DEC 052005
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    sr
    Complainant,
    )
    Pollut!o~
    coJ~’~’0is
    )
    PCB 96-98
    0,8OaW
    )
    v.
    )
    Enforcement
    )
    )
    SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
    )
    EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., individually and as
    )
    owner and President ofSkokie Valley Asphalt
    Co., Inc., and RICHARD J. FREDERICK,
    )
    individually and as owner and Vice President of
    )
    Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
    )
    Respondent
    )
    NOTICE OF FILING
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk ofthe Pollution
    Control Board the RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT, EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., TO
    COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT REQUEST TO RESPONDENTS REGARDING
    COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION, a copy of which is hereby served upon you.
    4jJ
    D4vj~.O~Neill
    ~‘,/‘/~4
    December
    5,
    2005
    David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
    5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
    Chicago, IL 60630-1249
    (773) 792-1333

    Back to top