394/SVA
MBJ
Atty.
No. 6208987
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
RECEIVED
by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
CLERK’S OFFICE
of the State ofIllinois
)
Complainant,
)
DEC 052005
PCB
96-98
PollutionSTATE
OFControlILLINOISBoard
SKOKJE 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.
)
RESPONSES OF THE RESPONDENT, RICHARD .J. FREDERICK TO
COMPLAINANT’S INTERROGATORIES 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
Interrogatories to Respondent regarding Complainant’s Fee Petition, states as follows:
Interrogatory #1
Identify the individual(s) answering these interrogatories on behalf ofthe
Respondents, including his relationship to the Respondents, and how long he has been
associated with the Respondents. Specify the particular interrogatories to which each
such person contributed.
Answer:
Richard J. Frederick with the assistance of his attorneys.
Interrogatory
#2
With respect to any witnesses that Respondents may call at a hearing on the
attorney fee issue, state the following:
a.
The name, address and employer of each witness;
b.
A summary of the relevant facts within the knowledge ofor to which said
witness will testify, and
c.
A list ofall documents or photographs which any such witness relied
upon, will use or which Respondents may introduce into evidence in
connection with the testimony of said witness.
Answer:
a. Joel J. Sternstein, 333 S. Wabash, 19-S, Chicago, Illinois 60685;
Michael C. Partee, 188 W. Randolph Street,
20th
Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601; Mitchell
L. Cohen, 188W. Randolph Street, 2O~~Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601 and Bernard J.
Murphy, Jr., 125 S. Clark Street, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
b. These witnesses will testify on matters including, but not limited to, the
billing and time record practices and procedures at the Attorney General’s office, both in
general and as they pertain to this matter. The testimony will also address the
authenticity and the accuracy of the time sheets that were submitted in this matter as a
basis for billable hours, the basis for the pay rate for the attorneys that were billed in this
matter, the practices for selecting and supervising junior counsel to work on cases before
the Illinois Pollution Control Board, the witnesses knowledge ofand duty to know the
procedural rules ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board when practicing before the Board,
the Attorney General’s policy concerning the responsibility of a supervising attorney for
either directing or allowing another assistant attorney general to knowingly and willfully
commit ethical violations and violate procedural rules. The witnesses will also testify on
the Attorney General’s office policy and procedures to ensure against and report the
submittal of false testimony in the form of false affidavits, fraudulent time records,
duplication ofbillable hours, manufactured billing rates and other types of unethical
behavior.
c. I have no knowledge of the information concerning the information on
which the witnesses will reply.
Interrogatory #3
Identify any and all opinion witnesses that Respondents interviewed and/or
expects to call at a hearing on the attorney fee issue. Specify:
a.
The subject matter on which the opinion witness is expected to testify as
well as the conclusions, opinions and/or expected testimony of any such
witness;
b.
The qualifications, including, but not limited to, the opinion witness’
educational background, practical experience, if any and all seminars and
post graduate training he has received, his experience, if any, as a teacher
or lecturer, and his professional appointments and associations;
c.
The identity of each document examined, considered, or relied upon by
him to form his opinions;
d.
All proceedings in which each opinion witness has previously testified as
an opinion witness;
e.
Any and all reports of the opinion witness and
f.
Whether or not each such person viewed, examined, inspected or
conducted any tests at or concerning the site in issue and, if so, state:
i.
The date ofeach such viewing, examining, inspection or testing;
ii.
The location at which each such viewing, examining, inspecting or
testing took place;
iii.
The nature of each such viewing, examining, inspecting or testing
(i.e.,
visual, photographic, etc.);
iv.
The names, addresses, titles, and capacities of all persons present
during each such viewing, examining, inspecting or testing; and
v.
Whether notes, calculations, reports or other documents were
prepared or made during or as a result of any such examination,
inspection or test, and identify same.
Answer
a. Deborah A. Stonich, 333 S. Wabash Avenue, Suite 19-S, Chicago,
Illinois 60685. The opinion witness has not completed her review ofthe materials in this
case and has not developed the scope and contents of her testimony. When these
materials are available, they will be presented to the Board and the Complainant.
Interrogatory
#4
For each attorney that has provided legal services to Respondents related to this
case, list all of their hours spent on such services, as well as the corresponding activity
performed, 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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #5
For each attorney that has provide legal services to Respondents related to this
case, describe the attorney fee arrangement with Respondents and as between attorneys in
this case
(e.g.,
flat fee arrangement, hourly billing arrangement).
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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #6
For each attorney that has provided legal services to Respondents related to this
case, list all of their hours spent on such services, as well as the corresponding activity
performed, that were 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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #7
For each attorney that has provided legal services to Respondents related to this
case, list their hourly billing rate while providing such services, and list any changes in
hourly billing rates during the pendcncy of 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
infonnation and violates the attorney-client privilege between the Respondent and the
Respondent’s attorneys. The Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #8
Itemize all costs, on a daily basis, that were billed to Respondents and/or accrued
by 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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #9
For each attorney that has provided legal services to Respondents related to this
case, describe their education and legal experience and expertise relevant 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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #10
For each attorney that has provided legal services to Respondents related to this
case, list their hourly rate billed in all other similar cases during the same time frame of
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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #11
Identify the name, address and telephone number for the attorney(s) that will be
representing attorneys David S. ONcill and Michael B. Jawgiel when they give
deposition and hearing testimony on the attorney fee issue.
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 Respondent has not placed his attorney’s fees or his
expenses at issue in this matter.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)
SS
COUNTY OF COOK
RICHARD J. FREDERICK, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and
states that he is a Respondent in the above-captioned matter that he has read the
foregoing document, and the answers made herein are true, correct and complete to the
best of his knowledge and belief
RICHARD J. FREDERICK
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this
day of
_________
.
2005
NOTARY PUBLIC
David O’Neill and
Michael B. Jawgiel, P.C.
Attorneys for Respondent
5487
Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630
,uI.L.rt..C
~riutt HHRLEY
DR 1847662E92E
1D:61773774t513
Pt3’3
Dec 01 2005 3:5’?PH
HP
LnSERJrI ~33O
p.3
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
)
) ss
COUNTY OF COOK
)
RICHARD
J.
FR~DELtTCK,
bciag firsi duly
sworn
on ogth, deposes and
~ate~
th~tthe
is B
Respcn4cr.t
Lu the
nbovc.cnpliotcd
matter
thtu ~ie has itad the
forcgnLn~
document, and
the
answers made
herein arc tnxc, cortect
and complete
to th~
he~tof his knowledge and belief
RICHARD..
ERICK
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me tbio
day of~~~_•,2005
NOTM(Y PUBLIC
~.
H0T~RY
COLLEENB,PERS’t’
PUBLIC, STATE OF
ILLINCIS
I
David
Mtchacl
O’NciI1
B.JKwgiel,
and
P.C.
jOM~ISSwNEX?mS6~so7
Attorneys for Re~pordent
5487
Chic’.go,Milwaukee
i,1ti~ois60630
Avenue
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certifS’ that I have served the attached RESPONSE OF THE
RESPONDENT, RICHARD J. FREDERICK, TO COMPLAINANT’S INTERROGATORIES
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
David& O’Neill
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this ~
~
,20
e~.±C
~Pub1~
OFFlcI4~i
SEAL
RITA
LOMBARD,
NOTmy PUBLIC.
STATE
OF ILliNois
MY
Cat4js~njiEWIRE$O~~7
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DEC 052005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
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.,
)
Respondents
)
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, RICHARD J. FREDERICK, TO
COMPLAINANT’S INTERROGATORIES TO RESPONDENTS REGARDING
COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION, a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
‘
Da4S. O’Neill
December
5,
2005
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
