PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
ofthe State ofIllinois,
Complainant,
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.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Mr. David S. O’Neill, Esq.
Ms. Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Mr. Michael
B.
Jawgiel, Esq.
Pollution Control Board
5487
North Milwaukee Avenue
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
P.O. Box
19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed Complainant’s Answers and Objections
to
Respondents’ First Set of Request for Admission ofFacts Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs, Complainant’s
Answers and Objections to Respondents’ First Set of Interrogatories
Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs, Complainant’s Answers and Objections to
Respondents’ First Set ofDocument Requests Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs,
and
Certification thereof,
with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board,
true
and correct copies
of
which are attached hereto and herewith served upon you.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
BY:
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau/North
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001
Chicago, fllinois 60601
Tel: (312)814-2069
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAP~ECE
CLERK’S OFFICE
v.
MAY
24
2005
)
STATE OF iLLINQj~
)
POII~tjonControl Board
)
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
(Enforcement
—
RCRA)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that true and correct copies ofthe Notice
of Filing, Respondents’
First Set of Request for Admission ofFacts Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs,
Complainant’s Answers and Objections to Respondents’ First Set ofInterrogatories
Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Complainant’s Answers and Objections to
Respondents’
First Set of Document Requests Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs,
and
Certification thereof, were
sent by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the persons listed on the
Notice of Filing on May 24, 2005.
BY:~
MICHAEL C. PARTEE
It is hereby certified that the originals plus nine (9) copies ofthe foregoing were hand-
delivered to the following person on May 24, 2005:
Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk
James R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
BY:
~
MICHAEL C.
PAR
EE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR1I~~
C ~
IV E D
CLERK S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
MAY 242005
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
ofthe State ofIllinois,
)
Pout
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
)
PCB 96-98
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC.,
)
(Enforcement
-
RCRA)
an Illinois
Corporation, EDWIN L. FREDERICK,
)
JR., Individually and as Owner and President of
)
Skokie ValleyAsphalt Co., Inc.,
and
)
RICHARD J. FREDERICK, Individually
)
and as Owner and Vice President ofSkokie
)
Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
COMPLAINANT’S ANSWERS AND
OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS’ FIRST
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND
EXPENSES
NOW COMES
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State ofIllinois,
and in response to Respondents’, SKOKIE
VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC., EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., and RICHARD J.
FREDERICK, First Request for Admission ofFacts Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses,
answers and objects as follows:
I.
GENERAL
OBJECTIONS
1.
Complainant objects to
Respondents’ Requests to Admit Facts (“Requests”)
because theyviolate the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005, which directed the parties to resolve
this dispute over attorneys’ fees and costs in a speedy and final resolution.
In allowing limited
discovery on Complainant’s request for fees and costs,
the Board ordered that “any pleading by
either party not designed to
further a speedy and ultimate resolution ofthis case will not be
tolerated by the hearing officer or the Board.”
(See Order, dated April 7,
2005, at 4.)
Many of
Respondents’
4~.
Requests
are insulting, harassing, made in bad faith, do not pertain to attorneys’
fees
and costs,
and are not devised to resolve this in a speedy and final maimer.
2.
ComplainantobjectstoRequestNos. 3,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,
and37
on relevance grounds and because they violate the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005.
These
Requests seek admissions regarding Comp1ainant~s
request for AAG Joel Sternstein’s fees,
which were previously disallowed by the Board.
(Ii)
The Board expressly ordered that “the
parties are not to address AAG
Joel Sternstein’s feesj in conducting discovery or at hearing.”
(~4~)
For these reasons, Complainant neither admits nor denies these Requests pertaining to
AAG Sternstein.
3.
Complainant objects to Request Nos. 4,
5,
6,
8, 9, 27,
28, and 30 on relevance and
privacy grounds because they seek irrelevant information regarding personal compensation to
Assistant Attorneys
General in this case.
The personal compensation to the Assistant Attorneys
General in this case is private information that has no relevance to the reasonableness of their
requested fees and costs.
For these reasons, complainant neither admits nor denies these
Requests pertaining to personal compensation.
4.
Complainant objects to the definition of“State” contained in the Requests as
overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to require Complainant to answer
on behalfof any office or agency other than the Attorney General’s Office and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
Complainant objects to
the form of the definitions of“subject matter ofthis case”
and “person” or “people.”
Complainant
also objects that the definition of“person” or “people” is
ambiguous.
2
II.
ANSWERS
Fact No.
1:
At
all times relevantto
the request for attorneys’ fees, cost
sic
and expenses, attorney Mitchell
Cohen was an assistant Attorney General employed by the State and the Illinois Attorney
General’s Office.
Response:
Subject to its objections, Complainant
admits this fact.
Fact
No.2:
At all times relevantto the request for attorneys’ fees,
cost
sic
and expenses, attorney Bernard
Murphywas an assistant Attorney General employed by the State
and the illinois Attorney
General’s Office.
Respons~Subject
to its objections,
Complainant admits this fact.
Fact
No.3:
At all times relevant
to
the request for attorneys’ fees, cost
sic
and expenses,
attorney Joel
Sternstein was an assistant Attorney General employed by the State and the Illinois Attorney
General’s Office.
Respons~Subject
to its
objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this
fact.
Fact
No. 4i
The Attorneys Claiming Fees are paid for their services by the State
at a salary as opposed to an
hourly rate.
Response:
Subject to its
objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact
No.5:
Taxpayers, including the Respondents, pay the Attorneys Claiming Fees through their taxes at a
non-hourly rate salary.
Respons~.~
Complainant specifically objects to this requestbecause it assumes facts not in
evidence.
Whether and how much taxes are paidby Respondents is not a matter ofrecord.
Complainant also
incorporates its general objections herein~Subject to its objections
and
pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005, Complainant neither admits nor denies this
fact.
3
Fact No. 6:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees have, in fact, already determined theirpay rate through their
employment relationship with the State
sic
Respons~Subject to its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact
No. 7:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees were not precluded from working on other matters as a result of
their acceptance of responsibilities for this matter.
Respons~Complainant specifically objects that this request is ambiguous.
Complainant also
specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Acceptance ofother, unrelated matters
is irrelevant to the requested fees and costs in this case.
Subject to its objections,
Complainant
admits this fact.
Fact No. 8:
The Attorney Claiming Fees are
sic
assigned to
the Environmental Bureau of the Illinois
Attorney General’s Office and as a result have experience and
expertise in the field ofIllinois
environmental
law.
sic
and their salary reflects this
expertise and experience.
Response: Subject to
its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact
No. 9:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees
sic
salary reflect the fact that they are assigned to the
Environmental Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and their experience and
expertise in the field ofIllinois
environmental law.
Respon~
Subject to
its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact No. 10:
This
case involves legal issues and procedures with which the Attorneys Claiming Fees are
supposed to have expertise
and does not involve novel and difficult issues.
Responsç~.
Subject to its objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact No.
11:
The assignment ofattorney Sternstein to this case, at a time when he had little or no experience
and expertise in environmental litigation is
an indication of the fact that the Illinois Attorney
General’s Office and the Attorneys Claiming Fees recognized that the matter did not involve a
novel and difficult issues.
Respons~
Subject to its
objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005,
Complainant neither
admits nordenies this fact.
4
Fact No. 12:
Attorney
Cohen
was either co-counsel or supervising
attorney to Attorney Stemstein during all or
part ofthe time in which Attorney Cohen is claiming fees.
Response~.
Subject to its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact
No. 13:
Attorney Cohen knew that Attorney Sternstein had been employed by the Board in the period
immediate before being assigned to this matter.
Respons~Subject to
its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact No.
14:
Attorney Cohen had a duty to know and comply with the Procedural Rules ofthe Board.
Respon~jComplainant specifically objects to
this request on relevance grounds.
This request is
irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees and costs.
Complainant also specifically
objects that this request is argumentative.
Subject
to its objections, Complainant admits this fact
and states that all attorneys in this case have such a duty.
Fact
No.
15:
The Board’s Procedural Rules prohibited Attorney Sternstein from representing
a party in this
matter during the period in which fees are being claimed.
Respon~Subject
to its objections and pursuant to
the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact No.
16:
Attorney Cohen knew or should have known that Attorney Stemstein was prohibited from
representing a party in this case
sic
Respon~~
Subject
to
its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact No.
17:
During discovery in this matter, the Respondents specifically asked the Complainant for
information on the past employment history ofthe Attorneys Claiming Fees and the Complainant
failed to divulge that Attorney Sternstein had previously been employed by the Board and had
been involved in decisions concerning this
case.
Respon~Subject to its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005,
Complainant neither
admits nor denies this fact.
5
Fact No. 18:
During the period in which fees are being claimed, Attorney Sternstein was having ex-parte
sic
communications with both Board members and Board staff.
Response:
Subject to its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact
No. 19:
Attorney Cohen had a duty to determine if Attorney Cohen
sic
was ineligible to represent a
partyand was otherwise involved in unethical conduct in this matter, to prevent Attorney
Sternstein from representing a party in this matter if a conflict exists, to make the Board and the
Respondents ofany conflict and violation ofBoard Procedural Rules and to report such conflicts,
violations
and ethical breached
sic
to the proper disciplinaryboards and to his supervisors at
the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
Response~
Subject
to its objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact No.
20:
Attorney Cohen’s failure to properly handle and address the conflict and ethical breaches of
attorney Sternstein represent an
ethical breach by Attorney Cohen.
Response:
Subject to its
objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April
7,
2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact
No. 21:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees never prepared a budget for the for
sic
representing the State in
this matter and no suchbudget was submitted to the State and approved by the State or any other
client.
Respon~Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Whether or
not a budget was prepared is irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees
and costs.
Subject to its objections,
Complainant admits this fact.
Fact
No. 22:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees did not maintain time sheets or logs of any kind to document and
verify thehours worked on this matter.
Respons~Subject to its objections, Complainant denies this fact.
6
Fact No. 23:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees did not submit periodic invoices or request for payments to their
clients with respect to this matter.
Respon~Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Whether or
not invoices were submitted is irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees and costs.
Subject
to
its objections, Complainant admits this fact.
Fact No.
24j
The Attorneys Claiming Fees did not discuss theirhourly billing rates with the State or any other
client in this matter or gain approval to
bill at any agreed to billing rate other than the
salary paid
to the Attorney Claiming Fees by the State.
Respon~Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
This request is
irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees and costs.
Complainant also specifically
objects to the form ofthis request.
Subject to its
objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact
No. 25:
Throughout the course ofefforts to
negotiate and settle this matter, the Attorneys
Claiming Fees
did on more than on occasion use the fact that they could collect legal fees
costs and expenses in
negotiations and attempted to use this fact to increase the amount ofthe final settlement amount
offer.
Respon~Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Complainant
specifically objects to
this Request because settlement communications are inadmissible.
This
request is irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees and costs.
Subject to its
objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact
No. 26:
Throughout the course of efforts to negotiate and settle this matter, the Attorneys Claiming Fees
did not and, in fact, refused to
offer the Respondents any details ofthe amount of the attorneys
sic
fees, costs and expenses being claimed.
Respon~
Complainant specifically objects to
this request on relevance grounds.
This request is
irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees and costs.
Complainant specifically objects
that settlement communications are inadmissible.
Complainant also specifically objects to this
Requestbecause it is
argumentative.
Subject to its objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact No.
27:
None ofthe Attorneys
Claiming Fees has ever been paid an hourly rate as high as the hourly rate
they are requesting in this matter.
Respon~Complainant specifically objects to the form of this Request and because it is
ambiguous.
Subject to
its objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies
this fact.
7
Fact No. 28:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees have not collected any payments from the State based on the hourly
rate they are claiming in requestfor legal fees in this maimer.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to
the form ofthis Request and because it is
ambiguous.
Subject to its objections
and pursuant to the Board’s.Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits nor denies this fact.
Fact No.
29:
The Attorneys
Claiming Fees did not consult any expert or site
sic
any authority in fabricating
the hourly fee charges in its
determination of attorneys’ fees.
Response~
Complainant specifically objects to the form ofthis Request.
Complainant also
specifically objects that this Request assumes facts not in evidence.
Subject
to its
objections and
pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005, Complainant neither admits nor denies this
fact.
Fact No. 30:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees have not collected any payments from the State based on the hourly
rate they are claiming in request for legal fees in this maimer.
Respons~Complainant specifically objects to the form of this Request.
Subject to its
objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005, Complainantneither admits nor denies
this fact.
Fact No. 31:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees did not present any argument for attorneys’ fees, cost and expenses
at the hearing on this matter before the Board on
October 30 and
31, 2003
sic.
Response~.
Subject to its objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact
No. 3~
In its Closing Rebuttal Argument and Reply Brief, the Attorneys Claiming Fees claimed total
expenses of
$5,574.84
but
failed to offer receipts and other documentation that proved that these
charges were actually incurred.
Response:
Subject to its
objections, Complainant admits this fact.
Fact No. 33:
Attorney Cohen executed an affidavit on April 13, 2004 in which he affirmed that State of
Illinois incurred
$5,574.84
in costs in prosecuting this case and submitted this affidavit as
evidence ofthe State’s claim for expenses in this matter.
Response:
Subject
to its objections, Complainant. admits this fact.
8
Fact No. 34:
AttorneyCohen executed an affidavit on September
16, 2004 in which he affirmed that State of
Illinois incurred $3,482.84 in costs
in prosecuting this case and submitted this affidavit as
evidence of the State’s claim for expenses in this matter.
Response: Subject to its
objections, Complainant
admits this fact.
Fact No. 35:
The affidavit filed by Attorney Cohen on April
13, 2004
contained false information and
supported a false claim for recovery of expenses even though Attorney Cohen states in the
affidavit that the information in the Affidavit is
“true and accurate” and that he has “reviewed the
cots incurred”.
sic
Responsej Subject
to its objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact
No.36
The submission ofan affidavit with false information as testimony and evidence-to the Board
constitutes perjury on behalf ofAttorney Cohen, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the
State.
Responsej
Complainant specifically objects
to this Request because it assumes facts not in
evidence.
The affidavit did not contain false information.
Subject
to its objections, Complainant
denies this fact.
Fact No. 37~
To date,
none ofthe Attorneys
Claiming Fees, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office or the State
have taken any disciplinary
action or
review procedures with respect to Attorney Sternstein’s
ethical breach in representing a client at the
Board in violation ofthe Board’s Procedural Rules,
Attorney Cohen’s Ethical breachin supervising or co-counseling this matter with Attorney~
Sternstein when Attorney Cohen knew or should have known that Attorney Stemstein was
violating the Board’s Procedural Rules or forAttorney Cohen’s perjury in executing a false
affidavit and none ofthe parties have reported these actions to
appropriate disciplinary
commissions as required.
Respons~
Complainant
specifically objects to this Request because it assumes facts not in
evidence.
Complainant also specifically objects that this
Request is argumentative.
Subject
to its
objections and pursuant to
the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant neither admits
nor denies this fact.
9
Fact No. 38:
The cost ofoff-site copying included the copying of a number ofpages and documents that were
not entered into evidence and referred to at hearing.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Whether or
not
all
documents copied at Complainant’s expense were admitted into evidence orreferred to
at
a
hearing
in
this matter is irrelevant.
Subject to its objections and after a reasonable
investigation, Complainant lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny this fact.
Fact No. 3~
Travel and lodging expenses incurredby Attorney Cohen and AttorneyMurphy were cost
incurred strictly at the discretion ofthose attorneys and were not necessary for the prosecution of
this case.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects that this Request is argumentative.
Subject to its
objections, Complainant denies this fact.
Fact No.
40:
The Attorneys Claiming Fees each submitted affidavit
sic
to
support the hours theybilled as
legal fees.
Response:
Subject to
its objections, Complainant admits this fact.
Fact No.
41j
None ofthe
summaries
of
hours presented by the Attorneys Claiming Fees with their affidavits
represent a record
of
hours that were kept at
the time the work was performed.
Response:
Subject to its objections, Complainant
denies this fact.
Fact No.
42:
The summaries
of
hours presented
by
the Attorney Claiming Fees with their affidavits were
prepared forthe purpose of submittal with the affidavits and the
petition for attorneys’ fees.
Respons~Subject to its objections,
Complainant admits this fact.
Fact No. 43:
The summaries ofhours presented by the Attorneys ClaimingFees with the affidavits and the
petition for attorneys’ fees have not and will not be presented to the Attorneys Claiming Fees’
clients for actualpayment.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to
this Request on relevance grounds.
This request
is irrelevant to the reasonableness ofthe requested fees and costs.
Subject
to its objections,
Complainailt admits this fact.
10
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
ofthe State of Illinois
BY:
MICHAEL C. PARTEE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel:
312-814-2069
11
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
ofthe State ofillinois,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
)
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 ofSkokie
ValleyAsphalt Co., Inc.,
Respondents.
)
COMPLAINANT’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS’ FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND
EXPENSES
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General ofthe
State ofIllinois, and in response to Respondents’, SKOKIE
VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC., EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., and
RICHARD
J.
FREDERICK,
First Set of Interrogatories RegardingAttorney’s
Fees and Expenses, answers and
objects as follows:
I.
GENERAL
OBJECTIONS
1.
Complainant
objects
to
First Set ofInterrogatories Regarding Attorney’s Fees and
Expenses
(“Interrogatories”)
because they violate the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005,
which
directed the parties to
resolve this dispute in a speedy and
final resolution.
In allowing limited
discovery on
Complainant’s request for fees and costs, the
Board ordered that “any
pleading by
either partynot designed
to
further a speedy and ultimate
resolution of
this
case will not be
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAY 242005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
PCB 96-98
(Enforcement
—
RCRA)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
tolerated by the hearing officer or the Board.”
(See Order, dated April 7, 2005, at 4.)
Respondents’
~
Interrogatories (including sub-parts) are insulting, harassing, made in bad faith,
and are not devised to resolve this in
a speedy and final manner.
2.
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No.
14 on relevance grounds and because it
violates the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005.
This Interrogatory seeks information regarding
Complainant’s request for AAG Joel Stemstein’ s
fees, which were previously disallowed by the
Board.
(~4~)
The Board expressly ordered that “the parties arenot to address AAG
Joel
Sternstein’s
fees
in conducting discovery or at hearing.”
(Id.)
For these reasons, Complainant
does not answerthis Interrogatory pertaining to AAG Stemstein.
3.
Complainant objects to Interrogatory Nos.
16 and 23(i)
on relevance and privacy
grounds because they seek irrelevant information regarding personal compensation to
Assistant
Attorneys General in this case.
The personal compensation to the Assistant Attorneys General in
this case is private informationthat has no relevance to
the reasonableness oftheir requested fees
and costs.
For these reasons, Complainant does not answer Interrogatories pertaining to personal
compensation.
4.
Complainant objects to
the Interrogatories because they violate Supreme Court
Rule 2 13(c), which provides that a party shall serve no more than 30 interrogatories, including
sub-parts.
Respondents served
~Q
interrogatories, including
sub-parts.
5.
Complainant objects to
the definition of“State” contained in the Interrogatories as
overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that itpurports to require Complainant to answer
on behalf ofany office or agency other thanthe Attorney General’s Office and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
2
6.
Complainant objects to
the form ofthe definitions of“subject matter ofthis case”
and “person” or “people.”
Complainant also
objects that the definition of“person” or “people” is
ambiguous.
II.
ANSWERS
Interrogatory No.
1:
Identify the
person(s) answering these interrogatories and identify
any
and all persons who were
consulted in
formulating answers to
these
interrogatories.
Respons~Subject to its
objections, Complainant
answers Assistant Attorneys General Mitchell
L.
Cohen
and Michael
C. Partee.
Interrogatory No. 2:
Identify
any persons with knowledge related to the subject matter of the claims for Attorneys
Fees
and
Costs and
describe in detail the subjects ofwhichhe has knowledge.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects that this request seeks irrelevant information and is
overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks a virtually endless list ofnames.
Subject
to its objections, Complainant answers that Assistant Attorneys General Cohen, Michael
C.
Partee, and Elizabeth Wallace have such knowledge.
Former Assistant Attorneys General
Bernard J. Murphy, Jr, Joel Sternstein, Kelly Cartwright, Ellen O’Laughlin and Bradley Halloran
also
have such knowledge.
All ofthese attorneys have knowledge ofthe legal work that each
attorney respectivelyperformed in this case.
Also, please see Complainant’s Answers and
Objections to
Respondents’ First
Set ofDocument Requests.
Complainant’s investigation
continues.
Interrogatory No. 3:
Identifyany and all witnesses you may or will
call at the evidentiaryhearing on this matter.
For
each witness, state the following:
a.
The name address and employer of each witness;
b.
A summary ofthe relevant facts within the knowledge ofwhich said witness will
testify;
c.
A list ofall
documents or photographs which any such witness relied on, will use
or which Complainant mayintroduce into evidence in connection with the testimony ofsaid
witness.
Respon~ Subject to its objections, Complainant answers that
it may call
AAG Cohen and
Partee,
188 West
Randolph
Street, Suite 2001, Chicago, Illinois.
AAG
Cohen and Partee have
knowledge ofthe requested attorneys’ fees and costs.
Complainant may also call Bernard J.
Murphy, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Department ofLaw,
City ofChicago Board of
Education,
125
South Clark Street, 7th Floor,
Chicago, Illinois.
Please see Complainant’s
Answers and Objections to Respondents’
First Set ofDocumentRequests forthe documents on
which these witnesses may rely.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
3
Interrogatory No. 4
Identify any and all
opinion witnesses that the Complainant interviewed or expects to
call at
hearing:
a.
The subject matter on which the opinion witness is expected to testify as well as
to conclusions, opinions andlor expected testimony ofany such witness;
b.
The qualification, including but not limited to, the opinionwitness’s educational
background, practical experience in the area in which he is expected to testify, any articles or
paper he has written, any and all seminars and post graduate training he has received, his
experience as a teacher or lecturer and his professional appointments and associations.;
sic
c.
The identityofeach document
examined, considered or relied on by him to form
his opinion;
d.
All proceedings in which each opinionwitness has previouslytestified as an
opinion witness;
e.
Any and all reports of the opinion witness;
sic
Response~
Subject to its
objections, Complainant has not interviewed, and does not intend to
call, an opinion witness.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory No.
5:
Identify any and all attorneys that the Complainants
sic
have retained or consulted or expects
sic
to retain or consult in the preparation and
conduct of this hearing:
a.
The
name ofthe attorney;
b.
The year the attorney was admitted to the Illinois bar
sic
c.
The attorney’s presentplace ofemployment
sic
d.
The attorney’s former employer
sic
e.
The portions ofthe casepreparation and litigation forwhich the attorney will be
responsible.
Response: Subject to its objections, Complainant answers that AAG Partee has been assigned
and consulted in the preparation and conduct of this hearing.
Please see Complainant’s Answers
and Objections to Respondents’ First Set of Document Requests for his resume.
Complainant’s
investigation continues.
Interrogatory No. 6:
Describe any and all guidelines and policies that existed at the illinois Attorney General’s Office
during the period in which hours were billed under the request for attorneys’ fees, cots
sic
and
expenses that addressed the topic ofbilling for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and any
changes to those policies or the guidelines during the same period.
Response: Complainant
specifically objects to this request on form and relevance grounds.
Subject
to
its objections, Complainant answers there is no informationresponsive this Request.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
4
Interrogatory No.
7:
Describe any and all review procedures that exist for reviewing and authorizing billed hours and
expenses at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
Response~Complainant specifically objects to this request on form and relevance grounds.
Subject to
its objections, Complainant answers the Respondents’ dispute ofComplainant’s
attorneys’ fees
and cost request presently before Board is the “review procedure.”
Complainant’s
investigation continues.
Interrogatory No. 8:
Give detailed information on any time and materials that were committed to or exerted for the
prosecutionofthis case but were not billed and included in the request for reimbursement of
fees, cost and expenses
and the reason that thee
sic
items were not included.
Response: Complainant specifically objects on relevance grounds because time that was spent
but not billed is irrelevant to
Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees
and costs orthe hearing
on said request.
Complainant also specifically objects to
the phrase “time and materials that
were committed to or exerted for the prosecution” as vague and ambiguous.
Subject to its
objections,
Complainant answers that AAG Wallace and former AAG Sternstein, Cartwright,
O’Laughlin and Halloran each spent significanttime on this case that is not included in
Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Numerous administrative staff within the
Attorney General’s Office also spent significant time on this case that
is not included in
Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
AAG Partee is now spending significant
time on this case, which is not currently included in Complainant’s request.
Complainant’s
investigation continues.
Interrogatory No. 9:
Identify any and
all hours and expenses that were assigned to this case by the attorneys but were
not billed because they were contested by a supervisor reviewing time sheets and
expense
statements and you were instructed not to bill these items.
Response: Complainant specifically objects on relevance grounds because time that was spent
but not billed is irrelevant to Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs or the hearing
on said request.
Subject
to its objections, Complainant answers that no time spent on this case
was contested by a supervisor.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory No.
10:
Identifyany and all hours and expenses
in any matter involving your employment
atthe illinois
time sheets and expense statements.
sic
Respons~Complainant
specifically objects to the
form ofthis request
—
Complainant does not
understand this request.
Subject
to
its objections,
Complainant is unable to answer this request
as written.
5
Interrogatory No. 11:
Identifyboth your personal policy and the policy and procedures ofthe Illinois Attbrney
General’s Office regarding the assignment ofwork to staffYnon-attomey personnel or to less
experienced attorney personnel.
Response:
Complainant
specifically objects to the form ofthis request.
Complainant objects that
the terms “staffYnon-attorneypersonnel” and “less experienced attorney personnel” are vague,
ambiguous
and undefined.
Complainant also
objects on relevance grounds because, pursuant to
the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005,
the Board is only considering fees
and costs for two
Assistant Attorneys General that worked on this matter.
Subject to its objections, Complainant
answers that work related to document production, photocopying, faxing and mailing was
assigned to administrative staff within the Attorney General’s Office.
Complainant’s
investigation continues.
Interrogatory
No.
12:
Identify any and all work in this matter that was assigned to staffor lower billing-rate attorney
personnel.
Response~
Complainant
specifically objects to
the form ofthis request.
Complainant also
specifically objects that the terms “staff or lower-billing rate attorney personnel” is vague,
ambiguous and undefined.
Subject to its objections, please see Complainant’s answer to Request
No.
11.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory
No.
13:
Identify all attorneys’ fees that were submitted for cost recovery in this matterthat involved work
to renew, redraft, correct errors, review the work of other attorneys, review files, perform legal
research, request extension of time for filing, correct
a document that was not filed correctly or in
a timelymanner or respond to motions by opposing counsel that were filed because the attorneys
for the Illinois Attorney General’s office had filed a document in error or after a deadline.
Respon~~
Complainant specifically objects to
the form ofthis request.
Complainant specifically
objects that this request assumes facts not in evidence.
Complainant also specifically objects that
the terms “cost recovery” is vague, ambiguous and undefined.
Please see Complainant’s
Answers and Objections to
Respondents’ First Set ofDocumentRequests
for time records.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory
No.
14:
Identify all hours billed or expenses incurred in reviewing the work ofAttorneyJoel Stemstein or
to
respond to motions ofopposing counsel contesting Mr. Sternstein’s, your and the Attorney
General’s Office ethical lapses
and compliance with the Board’s procedural rules in practicing
before the Board in this matter.
Response: Complainant specifically objects that this Request assumes facts not in evidence.
For
the reasons stated in its general objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7,
2005,
Complainant will not answer this Request.
6
Interrogatory No.
15:
For all expenses related to
copying, identify all pages of documents that were actuallyusecFin the
presentation ofthe case at hearing and specifically referenced at the hearing and entered into
evidence at the hearing.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to this interrogatoryon relevance grounds.
Whether or not a particular document was actually used at hearing and entered into evidence is
not the determining factor for whether copying costs maybe assessed against Respondents.
Subject to its objections, please see the documents that were actuallyused in the presentation of
the case at hearing and specifically referenced at the hearing and entered into evidence at the
hearing.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory
No.
16:
Identify any and all attorney’s
sic
fees ever paidto any ofthe attorneys requesting attorneys’
fees including the time period of the work, the method ofmaintaining records ofthe hours
worked and charged, the determination ofthe hourly rate, the hourly rate charged, and number of
hours, the client, the nature ofthework, the total amount bill
sic
and the total amount
collected.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to
this Request on relevance grounds.
Complainant
also specifically objects that this request is over broad and unduly burdensome.
Subject
to its
objections, please see Complainant’s Answers and Objections to
Respondents’ First
Set of
Document Requests.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory No.
17:
Identify on the methodology used to determine the hourly rate to be used to bill the attorneys’
hours in this matter and the name ofthe supervisorypersonnel who were consulted and/or
approved ofthe hourly rate to be charged.
Respons~Subject to its
objections, Complainant answers that Board has previously determined
the hourly rate to be used.
See e.g., People v. J & F Hauling, Inc., PCB 2002-2 1
(May 1, 2003).
Also, please see
Complainant’s Answers and Objections to Respondents’
First Set ofDocument
Requests.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory
No. 18:
Identify the Illinois Attorney General’s Office policy on travel, hotel stays, hotel selection, and
other expenses incurred by the attorneys during the period ofthe hearing before the Board.
Response: Subject to its
objections, Complainant answers that Assistant Attorneys General go
through a travel coordinator who utilizes State-approved hotels and other accommodations,
mileage fees and
per diem
rates.
Please
see Complainant’s Answers and Objections to
Respondents’
First Set ofDocument Requests.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
7
Interrogatory
No.
19:
Identify any progress billings, periodic billing or intermediate billing that was prepared for this
case.
Response~.
Complainant
specifically objects on relevance grounds.
Subject
to its objections,
Complainant answers that are no progress billings, periodic billings or intermediate billings that
were prepared forthis case.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory No. 20:
Identifyinformation pertaining to
any review, approval and payment of any progress bills,
periodic bills or intermediate bills submitted for approval and/or~
payment.
Response: Please see Complainant’s answer to Request No.
20.
Interrogatory No.
21:
Identify any budgetprepared for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses related to this case and any
information pertaining to the tracking and compliance to the budget and any adjustments made to
the budget.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects on relevance grounds.
Subject to
its objections,
Complainant answers that is no budget prepared for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses related to
this case and any information pertaining to
the tracking and compliance to the budget and any
adjustments made to the budget.
Complainant’s investigation continues.
Interrogatory No.
22:
Identify concerning the review and approval ofany budgetprepared forthis case
sic,
the review
ofany reports tracking compliance with the budget and the approval ofany adjustments made to
the budget.
Response: Complainant
specifically objects to
the form ofthis Request.
Subject to its
objections, pleasesee
Complainant’s answer to Request No. 21.
8
Interrogatory No. 23:
For any case in which the Illinois Attorney General’s Office has previously or is presently
seeking attorneys’ fees, costs
and expenses under the same legal authority it is seeking attorneys’
fees costs
sic
and expenses in this matter, please supply the following information:
a.
The parties involved in the litigation;
b.
The court
and jurisdiction in which the claim was filed;
c.
The file number ofthe case;
d.
The subject matter ofthe case;
e.
The violations alleged in the case;
f.
The finaljudgment against the Respondents in the case;
g.
The names ofthe attorneys from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office requesting
fees;
f
sic.
The number ofhours requested in fees by each attorney;
h.
The hourly rate for fees requested by each attorney;
i.
The annual salarypaid to
each attorneyby the Illinois Attorney General’s Office
during the year in which the attorney claimed attorneys’ fees;
j.
The actual attorneys’ fees costs and expenses awarded in each case;
k.
The basis for awarding attorneys’ fees, cost and expenses different than the
amount requested in each case where the amounts were different.
Response: This Request literally encompasses every case everhandled by the so-called
Attorneys Claiming Fees because the Attorney General request fees and costs in every case filed
under the Environmental Protection Act.
Therefore, Complainant specifically objects on
relevance grounds.
Complainant
specifically objects that this Request is overly broad
and unduly
burdensome because this Request is without any limitation.
Complainant specifically objects
that this Request seeks information that is publicly-available and can be obtained from public
sources, including the Board.
Complainant also specifically objects to the form of sub-parts (f)
(second sub-part (f)) and (k) ofthis Request.
For the reasons stated in its general objections and
pursuant to
the Board’s Order, dated
April
7, 2005,
Complainant will not answer subpart (i) ofthis Request.
Based on its
objections, Complainant
is unable to comply with the balance ofthis request.
Interrogatory No. 24:
Supply information
for the
period during which attorneys’ fees, cost
sic
and expenses
are being
requested on
sic
the Illinois Attorney General’s Office forpreparing, reviewing and
executing
affidavits and any changes
to this policy during the
same
period.
Response~
Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Complainant
also specifically objects to
the form ofthis request
—
Complainant does not understand this
request.
Subject to
its objections, Complainant
is unable to answer this request as written.
9
Interrogatory No. 25:
Supply information forthe period during which attorneys’ fees, cost
sic
and expenses are being
requested on
sic
the Illinois Attorney General’s Office for reprimanding or disciplining
employees
that prepare and execute false affidavits.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds.
Complainant
also specifically objects tO the
form ofthis request.
Subject to its objections, Complainant
answers none.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State ofIllinois
BY:
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel: 312-814-2069
10
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
PEOPLE OF
THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
CLERK’S OFFICE
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
MAY
242005
ofthe State ofIllinois,
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
v.
)
)
PCB 96-98
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT
CO., INC.,
)
(Enforcement
-
RCRA)
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.
)
COMPLAINANT’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS’ FIRST SET
OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
EXPENSES
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe
State ofIllinois,
and in response to
Respondents’, SKOKE
VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC., EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., and RICHARD
J.
FREDERICK, First Set ofDocument Requests Regarding Attorneys’
Fees and Expenses,
answers
and objects as follows:
I.
GENERAL
OBJECTIONS
1.
Complainant objects to Respondents’ First Set ofDocument Requests Regarding
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Requests”) because they violate the Board’s Order, dated April
7, 2005, which directed the parties to resolve this dispute in a speedy and final resolution.
In
allowing limited discovery on Complainant’s request for fees and costs, the Board ordered that
“any pleading by either partynot designed to
further a speedy and ultimate resolution ofthis case
will not be toleratedby the hearing officer or the Board.”
(See Order, dated April 7, 2005, at 4.)
Many ofRespondents’
~4
Requests are insulting, harassing, made in bad faith, do not pertain to
attorneys’ fees and costs, and are not devised to resolve this in a speedy and final manner.
2.
Complainant objects to Request Nos. 6, 7,
10,
11,
12,
17 and 21
on relevance
grounds and because they violate the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005.
These Requests seek
documents regarding Complainant’s request for AAG Joel Sternstein’s fees, which were
previously disallowed by the Board.
(j~)The Board expressly ordered that “the parties are not
to address AAG
Joel
Sternstein’s fees
in conducting discovery or at hearing.”
(Id.)
For these
reasons, Complainant will not produce documents pertaining to
AAG Sternstein.
3.
Complainant objects to Request Nos.
5,
7,
8 and 9 on relevance and privacy
grounds because they seek irrelevant information regarding personal compensation to Assistant
Attorneys General in this case.
The personal compensation to the Assistant Attorneys General in
this case is private information that has no relevance to
the reasonableness oftheir requested fees
and
costs.
For these reasons, Complainant will not produce documents pertaining to personal
compensation.
4.
Complainant objects to the definition of“State” contained in the Requests as
overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to
require Complainant
to
answer
on behalfof any office or agency other than
the Attorney General’s Office and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
Complainant
objects to
the phrase “Attorneys Claiming Fees” used in these
Requests as ambiguous.
2
II.
ANSWERS
Document Request No.
1:
All Documents Related to the subject matter of
this case.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to this request on relevance grounds and that this
Request is overly broad and unduly burdensomebecause this Request is without any limitation.
“All documents related to the subject matter ofthis case” encompasses every document ever
produced in this caseby any party, most ofwhich are irrelevant to the requested fees and costs in
this case.
Complainant also
specifically objects that this Request violates the Board’s Order,
dated April 7, 2005,
which limits discovery to
the reasonableness ofthe requested fees
and costs.
Subject to its objections, Complainant directs Respondents to all previouslyproduced documents
in this case.
Document Request No. 2:
All Documents Related to work performed by the Attorneys Claiming Fees in the prosecution of
this ôase.
Response:
Complainant specifically objects to the form ofthis Request and that it is ambiguous.
Subject to its objections, please see Complainant’s answer to Request No.
1.
Document Request No. 3:
All Documents Related to education and legal training for the Attorneys Claiming Fees.
Response~Subject to
its objections, Complainant answers that resumes for the Assistant
Attorneys General requesting fees and costs will be produced.
Document Request No. 4:
All Documents Related to legal experience for the Attorneys Claiming Fees.
Response~.Subject to its
objections, please see
Complainant’s answer to Request No. 3.
Document Request No. 5:
All Documents
Related
to
guidelines for pay rates
and compensation for Assistant Attorney
Generals
sic
at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
Responses
For the reasons stated in its general objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order,
dated April
7,
2005, Complainant will not produce documents in response to this
Request.
3
Document Request No.
6:
All Documents Related to performance reviews,
evaluations, personnel records and professional
capabilities for the Attorneys Claiming Fees by the State from the date this case was filedwith
the Board until the present (including
said Documents for Joel Sternstein from the Board).
Response:
Except for the “professional
capabilities” ofAssistant Attorneys General in this case
(except for
AAG Sternstein), Complainant objects on relevance and privacy grounds
to
this
Request.
Complainant objects
to the
request for documents pertaining to professional
capabilities because it is vague, ambiguous, and violates the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005.
Subject to its objections, please see Complainant’s answer to Request No.
3.
Document Request No. 7:
All Documents Related to pay rate and total compensation per year and the history ofany
compensation increases and the basis for these compensation increases for the Attorneys
Claiming Fees by the State from the datethis
case was filedwith the Board until the present
(including said Documents for Joel Sternstein from the Board).
Response: For the reasons
stated
in its general objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order,
dated April
7, 2005, Complainant will not produce documents in response to this Request.
Document Request No.
8:
All Documents Related to, and copies of, the Federal and State Income Tax Returns and
Amended Returns filed forthe Attorneys Claiming Fees from the date this casewas filedwith
the Board until the present.
Response: For the reasons stated in its general objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order,
dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant will not produce documents in response to
this Request.
Document Request No. 9:
All Documents Related to the employment history of the Attorneys Claiming Fees, both with the
State and other employment throughout their lifetime, including information on pay rates and
compensation.
Response: For
the reasons stated in its general objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order,
dated April 7, 2005, Complainant will not produce documents regarding pay rates and
compensation in response to this Request.
Regarding the requested Assistant Attorneys
General
employment history “throughout their lifetime,” Complainant objects that this Request is
overbroad
and unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information.
Subject to its objections,
please see Complainant’s answers to Request Nos.
3 and
4.
Document Request No.
10:
All Documents Related to Mr. Joel Sternstein’s work related to the subject matter ofthis case
including work performed while an employee of the Board.
Response: For the reasons stated in its general objections and pursuant to
the Board’s Order,
dated April 7, 2005, Complainant will not produce documents in response to this Request.
4
Document Request No. 11:
All Documents Related to the procedure and decision related to the hiring ofMr. Joel Sternstein
by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
Response: For the reasons stated in its general objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order,
dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant will not produce documents in response to this Request.
Document Request No. 12:
All Documents brought by Mr. Joel Sternstein from the Board to the Illinois Attorneys
General’s
Office.
Response: Complainant specifically objects that
this Request assumes facts
not
in
evidence.
For
the reasons stated in its general objections
and pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7,
2005, Complainant will not produce documents in response to this Request.
Document Request No. 13:
All Documents Related to
telephone conversations between the Attorneys Claiming Fees and the
Board and information on the subject matter ofthe conversations from the date this case was
filed with the Board until the present.
Response: Complainant specifically
objects that this Request assumes facts not in evidence.
Subject to its objections, Complainant answers that there are no non-privileged documents.
Document Request No. 14:
All Documents Related to meetings
and conversations betweenthe Attorneys Claiming Fees and
the Board and information on the subject matter ofthe conversations from the date this
case was
filed with the Board until the present.
Response: Complainant specifically objects that this Request assumes facts not in evidence.
Complainant also specifically objects that the term “meetings” is vague and ambiguous.
Subject
to its objections, please see the Board’s docket, including Hearing Officer and Board Orders, in
this matter.
Document Request No. 15:
All Documents Relatedto the selection and/or determination ofthe “reasonable hourly rate”
stated on page 3 ofthe People ofthe State ofIllinois Attorney Fees and Costs Petition filed with
the Board on September 17, 2004.
S
Response:
Complainant specifically objects that this Request seeks documents that are publicly-
available and can be obtained from public sources, including the Board.
Subject to its objections,
Complainant
answers that the Board’s decision in People v. J & F Hauling, Inc., PCB 2002-2 1
(May 1, 2003), and the cases cited therein,
are responsive to this request.
5
Document Request No. 16:
All Documents Related to
the selection and/or determination ofthe “reasonable cost” stated on
page 3 ofthe People ofthe State ofIllinois Attorneys Fees and Costs Petition filed with the
Board on September 17, 2004.
Response:
Subject to its objections, Complainant answers that receipts will be produced.
Document Request No. 17:
All Documents Related to the selection and/or determination ofthe “the number ofhours AAGs
Cohen, Stemstein and Murphy spent prosecuting this case” stated on page 2 ofthe People ofthe
State ofIllinois Attorney Fees and Costs Petition filed with the Board on September 17, 2004.
Response: Subject
to its objections, Complainant
answers that, except
for AAGSternstein,
available time records will be produced.
For the reasons stated in its general objections and
pursuant to the Board’s Order, dated April 7, 2005, Complainant will not produce documents in
response to this Request as it pertains to AAG Sternstein.
Document Request No.
18:
All Documents Related to any other cases in which any of the Attorneys Claiming Fees sought
cost and attorneys’ fees.
Response: This Request literally encompasses
every case ever handled by the so-called
Attorneys Claiming Fees because the Attorney General request fees and costs in every case filed
under the Environmental Protection Act.
Therefore, Complainant
specifically objects on
relevance grounds. Complainant
specifically objects that this Request is overly broad and unduly
burdensome because this Request is without any limitation.
Complainant also specifically
objects that this Request seeks documents that arepublicly-available and can be obtained from
public sources, including the Board.
Complainant is unable to comply with this Request.
Document Request No.
19:
All Documents Related to any other cases in which anyofthe Illinois
Attorney General’s Office
sought cost
sic
and attorneys’ fees.
Response:
Subject to its objections, please see Complainant’s answer to Request No.
18.
Document Request No. 20:
All Documents Related to the preparation ofthe Affidavit ofBernard Murphy attached to the
People ofthe State of Illinois Attorneys
Fees and Costs Petition filed with the Board on
September
17, 2004.
Response:
Subject to its objections,
Complainant will provide documents in response to
this
Request.
6
5
Document Request No. 21:
All Documents Related to the preparation ofthe Affidavitof Joel Sternstein attached to
the
People of the State of Illinois Attorney Fees and Costs Petition filed with the Board on
September 17, 2004.
Response: For the reasons stated in its general objections and pursuant to the Board’s Order,
dated April 7, 2005,
Complainant will not produce documents in response to this Request.
Document Request No. 22:
All Documents Related to the preparation ofthe Affidavit ofMitchell Cohen attached to the
People ofthe State ofIllinois Attorney Fees and Costs Petition filed with the Board on
September
17, 2004.
Response:
Subject to its objections, Complainant will provide documents in response to this
Request.
Document Request No. 23:
All Documents Related to
the selection and/or determination ofthe costs stated in the People of
the State of Illinois Closing Rebuttal Argument and ReplyBrief and filed with the Board on
April
15,
2004..sic
Response: Subject to
its objections, Complainant will provide documents in response to this
Request.
Document Request No. 24:
All Documents Related to State’s and the Office ofthe Attorney General’s guidelines
and
procedures for assuring against and disciplinaring
sic
for the filing offalse statements withthe
Board or the State.
Response: Complainant specifically objects to
the form ofthis Request.
Complainant also
specifically objects to this Request on relevance grounds.
This Request seeks documents that are
irrelevant to
the requested fees and costs.
Subject
to its objections
and pursuant to the Board’s
Order, dated April 7, 2005, Complainant will not provide documents in response to this Request.
7
S
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
ofthe State of Illinois
BY:
MICHAEL
C.
PARTEE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel: 312-814-2069
8
CERTIFICATION
I, Mitchell L.
Cohen, being duly sworn under oath state that I have read the foregoing
Complainant’s Answers and Objections to Respondents’
First Request for Admission ofFacts
Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, First Set ofDocument Requests Regarding Attorneys’
Fees and Expenses,
and First Set ofInterrogatories Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.
I
and am aware ofthe contents thereof, and they are true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge
and belief.
~24tZW~’Z
~
Mitchell L.
Cohen
Subscribed and sworn to
befSre me this~2~
day of
2005
