PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
V .
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 .,
Respondent.
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
DEC 1 4 2005
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board the RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO QUASH COMPLAINANT'S DEPOSITION
NOTICES TO RESPONDENTS REGARDING COMPLAINANT'S FEE PETITION, a copy of
which is hereby served upon you
.
/M l
~~
Da
S.ONeil
December 14, 2005
David S. ONeill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
PCB 96-98
Enforcement
CLERKS
DVReceive r)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DEC
1 4 2005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
v .
)
Enforcement
Complainant,
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
1
PCB 96-98
RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO QUASH
COMPLAINANT'S DEPOSITION NOTICES TO RESPONDENTS
REGARDING COMPLAINANT'S FEE PETITION
The Respondents, 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.,, by and through its attorney, David S . O'Neill, herein move this Board to quash the
Complainant's Deposition Notice to Respondents Regarding Complainant's Fee Petition that was
filed with the Board on April 25, 2005 and in support thereof states as follows :
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1 .
On April 7, 2005, the Board issued an Order in the above-captioned matter. In this Order,
the Board granted the Respondents' motion for extension of time to allow for limited
discovery .
2 .
The Order specifically states that "the Board will grant the respondents additional time in
order to conduct discovery . ..". Order of April 7, 2005 at 3 . In the Conclusion of the
Order, the Board "grants respondents' motion for extension of time and authorizes
respondents to conduct discovery on the attorney fees issue" . Id at 4 .
3
.
On April 25, 2005, the Complainants filed with the Board and served upon the
Complainants' attorney a "Complainant's Interrogatories, Document Requests and
Deposition Notice to Respondents Regarding Complainant's Fee Petition"in which the
Complainant demanded to take the depositions of the Respondents' attorneys
.
4
.
In its order of November 17, 2005, the Board stated that it "did not implicitly rule that
People are prohibited from conducting discovery with respect to the issues relating to the
request for attorney fees and costs. After considering the arguments put forth by the
parties, the Board finds that in order to prevent prejudice to the People and in the effort to
build a complete record, the People must be allowed to conduct discovery on the
reasonableness of the attorney fees and costs" . Order of November 17, 2005 at 3
5 .
In the Order of November 17, 2005, the Respondents were directed to respond to the
People's discovery request within thirty days of the date of the Order. Id .
MOTION TO QUASH
6.
The Respondents have not placed their attorneys' fees at issue in this matter
.
7 .
The Respondents have not placed their expenses at issue in this matter
.
8 .
The Complainant's deposition of Respondents' attorneys will not allow for the discovery
of information calculated to be admissible evidence at the time of the hearing on the issue
of the reasonableness of the Complainant's attorneys' fees and costs
.
9 .
The Complainant's deposition of Respondents' attorneys will violate the attorney-client
privilege between the Respondents and the Respondents' attorneys .
10 .
Allowing the Complainant to take the deposition of Respondents' attorneys is
inconsistent with the Board's Order of April 7, 2005 which called for limited discovery
on the subject of the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and costs . Order of April 7, 2005 at
3
.
2
Wherefore, the Respondents respectfully request that the Board quash the Complainant's
Deposition Notices to Respondent Regarding Complainant's Fee Petition
.
David S. O' eill
David S. O'Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
3
day of
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO
QUASH COMPLAINANT'S DEPOSITION NOTICES TO RESPONDENTS
REGARDING COMPLAINANT'S FEE PETITION by hand delivery on December 14, 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
Dayi
O'Neill
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
