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
)
Complainant,
)
C~ntr~IBoard
V.
)
PCB96-98
)
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, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT
COMPANY. INC., TO THE COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT REQUEST TO
RESPONDENTS REGARDING COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION
NOW COMES the Respondent, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT COMPANY,
INC., 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 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 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.
3.
A daily accounting of all costs incurred by each attorney that has provided
legal services to Respondents related to this case, regardless of whether 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 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.
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
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 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.
6.
A daily accounting ofall 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
ease 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.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned,
certi& that I have served the attached RESPONSE OF THE
RESPONDENT, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT COMPANY, INC.,
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
Dg’~idS.O~eill
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
day of
J.~t.
,20
6~
OFFICML S~aj.
RITA LCMaAPDI
NOTARY
~‘j&j~
MY COaas~nj~
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
DEC 052005
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
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.,
)
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, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT
COMPANY, INC., TO COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENT REQUEST TO RESPONDENTS
REGARDING COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION, a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
x’/.///(
J/tJ/
Davi S. O’Neill
December 5, 2005
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487
N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
