394/SVA
MM
Atty. No. 6208987
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
‘t~0Etvso
by
LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
RK S
OFFICE
of
the State
of Illinois
)
DEC 052005
Complainant,
)
)
P03 96-98
,,STATErojlufjon OF
ControlILLiNOISBoard
)
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.
)
RESPONSES OF THE RESPONDENT, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT
COMPANY. INC.. TO COMPLAINANT’S INTERROGATORIES 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 Interrogatories to Respondent regarding Complainant’s Fee
Petition, states as follows:
Interrogatory #1
Identify the individual(s) answering these interrogatories on behalfof the
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:
Objection, Skokie Valley Asphalt Company, Inc. is no longer a legal
entity under the laws ofthe State of Illinois. Therefore, Skokie Valley Asphalt Company,
Inc. is incapable ofresponding to these interrogatories.
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 of or 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 5. Wabash, 19-S, Chicago, Illinois 60685;
Michael C. Partee, 188 W. Randolph Street,
20th
Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601; Mitchell
L. Cohen, 188W. Randolph Street,
20*h
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 theypertain 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 of and duty to know the
procedural rules of the 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 offalse affidavits, fraudulent time records,
duplication of billable hours, manufactured billing rates and other types of unethical
behavior.
c. I have no knowledge ofthe 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 ofthe opinion witness arid
£
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 of each 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 ofall 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 l9-S, Chicago,
Illinois 60685. The opinion witness has not completed her review of the materials in this
case and has not developed the scope and contents ofher 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 its
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 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 its
expenses at issue in this matter.
Interrogatory #6
For each attorney that has provided legal services to Respondents related to this
case, list all oftheir 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 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 its
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 pendency ofthis 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 its
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 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 its
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 its
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 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 its
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. O’Neill 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 its
expenses at issue in this matter.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certilS’ that I have served the attached RESPONSE OF THE
RESPONDENT, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT COMPANY INC., 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’~i
2
O~Nei1(
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this______________
dayof _____________,20
~
C.
__
NOTARYPUBUC~TATEOFLUNO~
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE
DEC
OF
052005
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
v.
)
Enforcement
)
)
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
)
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
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 INTERROGATORTES TO RESPONDENTS
REGARDING COMPLAINANT’S FEE PETITION, a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
-
//~J
Dayit~.orweffi
~
December
5,
2005
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487
N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
