394/SVA
MBJ
Atty. No. 6208987
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
DEC 052005
of the State of Illinois
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
V.
)
PC896-98
)
SKOXIE 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, RICHARD J. FREDERICK TO THE
COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT REQUEST
TO
RESPONDENTS REGARDING
COMPLAINANT’S FEE
PETITION
NOW COMES the Respondent, RICHARD J. FREDERICK, 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 of all hours, as well as the corresponding activity
performed, foreach 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 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.
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 case, 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 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 ofSkokie ValleyAsphalt Company, Inc., its attorney’s fees at issue norhas the
Respondent placed his or, in the case 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
infonnation 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.
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 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.
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 mattcr.
-. -
•~S4 ,nun.tn,.v. ~nint ttt*t_tY DR t8476628926
TO:6t773714t513
P:3’J
Dec
01 2005 3~E7Pt1
HP LASERiET 3330
COUNTY OF
COOK
STATF.OF
ILLINOIS
)
)
ss
)
RICHARDS.
IREDPAUCK, being first duly ~woroon
oath, deposes and
statc~hut he is ~Rosparident In the ctbos’c~c~ptionedmatter that )j~has
read
the
forcgnin~document, and the answers made herein are true, correct trid complete Ia tho
best of his knowledge and
belief.
RICHARD
SUBSCRIBED and
SWORN
to bofore mc thiG
dayof_~
,2005
NO’IARY PUBLIC
anAL”
~
COLLEEN8,PERR’I’
j
David O’Neill ax~d
Michac) B.
inwg~el,P.C.
Attorneys for ResponOcnt
5487
Milwaukee
Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630
ICK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
the undersigned, eerti~’
that I
have served the attached RESPONSE OF THE
RESPONDENT, RICHARD
J.
FREDERICK, 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
D~vXS.oNeili
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
_____________
dayof ____________,20
o~
otary Pub’
~IRES~7
I
NOTmy
RITA
PUBLIC
LaJBARD,
-
STATE OF ILLINQI
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE
DEC
OF
052005
ILLINOIS
PoHution Control B
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
oar
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
v.
)
Enforcement
)
)
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
)
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 of
)
Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
)
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board the RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT, RICHARD J. FREDERICK, TO
COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT REQUEST TO RESPONDENTS REGARDING
COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION, a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
g
/ /
D~yi~S.O’Neill
December 5, 2005
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
