December 19, 2005
David S. ONeill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
PCB 96-98
v.
)
Enforcement
SKOKIE
EDWIN LVALLEY
. FREDERICK,
ASPHALT,
JR., individually
CO ., INC .,
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.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board the RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS TO
RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS REGARDING
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINANT'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO
RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS REGARDING ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND EXPENSES, copies of which is hereby served upon you
.
Da4d S . O'Neilf
RECEIVEDCLERKS
OFFICE
DEC
1
v
2005
STATE OF ILL11401S
BEFORE THE 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
)
RECE
OFFICE
IVED
DLc 1 9 2005
Pollution
STATE OF
ControlILLINOIS
Board
RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS TO
RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF REOUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
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 their attorney, David S
. O'Neill, herein respond to the Complainant's
Answers and Objections to Respondents' First Request for Admission of Facts Regarding
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses 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
I
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 Respondents filed with the Board and served upon the
Complainant the Respondents' First Request for Admission of Facts regarding Attorneys'
Fees, Costs and Expenses
.
4.
On May 24, 2005, Complainant filed its Answer and Objections to Respondents' First
Request for Admission of Facts regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses
.
5.
In the Order of November 17, 2005, the Respondents were directed to respond to the
Complainant's Answer and Objections to Respondents' First Request for Admission of
Facts regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses within thirty days of the date of the
Order.
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS
I.
RESPONSE TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The Illinois Supreme Court Rules do not provide for general objections to discovery
. The
Complainant is required to respond to each item in discovery individually and is not allowed to
apply general objections to various items requested by the Respondents
. As such, the
Respondents move to strike the Complainant's general objections
as improper and non-
responsive .
The provisions for requests to admit are well established and have been said to apply in
all civil actions unless there is a special statute to the contrary
. (Wintersteen v . National
Cooperage & Woodenware Co
. (1935), 361 I11. 95, 109-110,197 N.E
. 578). The purpose of
these provisions is to expedite litigation, to obviate the difficulty and expense in procuring
evidence, and to compel an admission by the adverse party of evidence which is generally of
incontrovertible character
.. (Wintersteen v
. National Cooperage & Woodenware Co
. (1935), 361
Ill. 95, 108, 110, 197 N .E
. 578)
. The request for admission of facts enables "the parties and the
court to limit the issues and to reduce the production of unnecessary proof at trial"
(Smoot v .
2
Knott (1990), 200 I11
.App.3d 1082, 1097-1098, 146 I11 .Dec
. 831, 558 N .E. 2d, 794. See
People
v. Mindham, 253 Ill App . 3d 792 at 797, 625 N
.E. 2d 835 at 839, 192 I1
.Dec. 680 at 684 (2nd Dist
1993)).
1 .
The Complainant's objection that the Respondent's Request to Admit Facts is contrary to
the Board's order of April 7, 2005 requesting a resolution of the issue of attorney's fees
and cost in a speedy and ultimate resolution is baseless
. The purpose of the request to
admit facts is to identify items that are not in dispute and eliminate these issues from the
discovery process, therefore shortening the time needed for discovery
. A thorough
request for admission of facts is consistent with the Board's order to resolve the issue of
attorneys' fees and costs in a speedy manner
. It is the Complainant's failure to answer the
request for admission of facts in good faith that is contrary to the Board's Order of April
25, 2007
. The Respondents also take exception to the Complainant's position that the
interrogatories are "insulting, harassing, made in bad faith, do not pertain to attorneys'
fees and costs"
. In fact, the interrogatories are designed to address issues that the
Respondents intend to raise in its arguments against attorneys' fees including arguments
involving the Complainant and its attorneys unethical behavior, fraudulent filings,
falsification of documents and intentional and knowing violation of Board procedural
rules
. The fact that the Complainant feels insulted and harassed because of inquiries into
their conduct is not grounds for failing to respond to discovery
.
2.
The Complainant's are not attempting to address the issue of Mr
. Sternstein's misconduct
in Requests No
. 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 37
. Instead, Respondents are
inquiring into the culpability of Mr
. Cohen, his office and others representing the
Complainant for the actions of Mr
. Sternstein
. The Respondents need to know if Mr
.
Sternstein was instructed to violate the Board's procedural rules, who supervised Mr
.
Sternstein during the period the violations occurred, who had knowledge of the violation,
if the Complainant knew or had a duty to know the Board's procedural rules and if the
Complainant is claiming fees for work done while participating in violations of the
Board's procedural rules
. The Respondents need this information in order to prepare
3
arguments that the Complainant should not be compensated for attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred in performing, condoning or allowing the type of work previously
disallowed for recovery by the Board
.
3 .
The Respondents disagree that the compensation received by the Assistant Attorneys
General is irrelevant or private
. The compensation of Assistant Attorney General's is a
matter of public record
. Therefore, any claim of privacy is disingenuous
. Any argument
that the compensation of the Assistant Attorneys General is irrelevant to determining the
proper compensation for legal fees to be paid for work done by Assistant Attorneys
General is almost too illogical to even allow a response
. The Complainant desires to
force the Board and the Respondents to accept their fabricated hourly billing rate even
though it has no basis in the actual fee the attorneys are able to secure in the open market
.
Respondents are seeking information concerning the compensation of the Assistant
Attorneys General to prepare arguments that any payment above the fees actually paid to
and agreed to prior to judgment by the Assistant Attorneys General would result in a
windfall profit to the Complainant that is not anticipated and allowed by the statutory
language relevant to attorneys fees and costs .
In previous responses to discovery, the Complainant used an argument of irrelevance to
avoid answering inquiries into the previous employment of the Assistant Attorney
General working on behalf of the Complainant
. As a result, the Complainant was able to
conceal the fact that Mr
. Sternstein had previous been employed by the Board and was
acting in violation of Board procedural rules
. Therefore, any argument of relevance by
the Complainant is circumspect
. If the request for discovery meets the threshold standard
of being "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial" it should be
answered by the Complainant.
4.
The Respondents are allowed to define terms in their discovery as they deem necessary
and are not subject to the review of the Complainants
. If the Complainant is of the
opinion that it needs to limit its response to individual items based on the definitions
provided, it may properly do so in its individual responses to an item
. The Respondents
request the Board to strike this objection both because it is improper as a general
4
objection and because the Complainant is not of the privilege to determine the
appropriateness of the Respondents definitions .
5 .
The Respondents are allowed to define terms in their discovery as they deem necessary
and are not subject to the review of the Complainants . If the Complainant is of the
opinion that it needs to limit its response to individual items based on the definitions
provided, it may properly do so in its individual responses to an item
. The Respondents
request the Board to strike this objection both because it is improper as a general
objection and because the Complainant is not of the privilege to determine the
appropriateness of the Respondents' definitions
.
II. RESPONSE TO ANSWERS
Fact No. 1 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered, the objection should be stricken.
Fact No. 2: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request,
. In light of the
answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No. 3 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request
.
Fact No. 4
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request
.
Fact No
. 5 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
request does not assume facts not in evidence
. Evidence presented at hearing
shows the Respondents have and do pay taxes in the state of Illinois . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request
.
Fact No
. 6:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
5
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No . 7 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . There is no
ambiguity in this request . The Complainant should be instructed to answer this
request .
Fact No. 8:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No . 9:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request.
Fact No . 10 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 11 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No. 12:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request.
Fact No. 13 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request.
Fact No
. 14: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . The Complainant's
objection based on reasonableness of the requested fees and costs are
incomprehensible and impossible to respond to. The argument that the request is
argumentative is baseless . This information is required to prevent arguments
6
made in previous pleadings by the Complainants that their failure to comply with
procedural rules are minor and unintentional and should be excused by the Board
.
However, the intentionally insulting statement by the Complainant that "all
attorney in this case have such a duty" to comply with Procedural Rules of the
Board is, in fact, argumentative and improper . The Respondents ask that this
statement be stricken and that the Complainants be admonished by the Board as
the Board deems appropriate consistent with the Board's Order of November 17,
2005
. In light of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 15
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request
.
Fact No . 16
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No . 17
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request
.
Fact No. 18 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No. 19: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No. 20 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No. 21 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
7
offered, the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 22
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the
answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No. 23
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No. 24
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No. 25
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
at trial. The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Fact No . 26
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 27 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No. 28
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. There is no
ambiguous statement in this request
. The Complainant should be instructed to
answer this request .
Fact No. 29:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
8
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request.
Fact No. 30
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Fact No. 31 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 32 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer
offered the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 33 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 34 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered the objection should be stricken .
Fact No . 35 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer
offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No. 36:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. The
request does not assume facts not in evidence
. Mr. Cohen has sworn to two
affidavits with conflicting statements
. One or both affidavits must represent
perjured testimony . As such, the objection based on assumption of facts not in
evidence should be stricken . The Complainant needs to either object to or answer
this request . In light of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Fact No
. 37 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request does not assume facts not in evidence
. Mr. Cohen has sworn to two
affidavits with conflicting statements . One or both affidavits must represent
9
perjured testimony . As such, the objection based on assumption of facts not in
evidence should be stricken . The Complainant should be instructed to answer this
request.
Fact No. 38 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. There is no
ambiguous statement in this request
. The Complainant should be instructed to
answer this request .
Fact No. 39 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . There is nothing
argumentative in this request
. In light of the answer offered, the objection should
be stricken .
Fact No. 40 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer
offered the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 41 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered, the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 42: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered, the objection should be stricken .
Fact No. 43 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
at trial. The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken.
10
Wherefore, the Respondents respectfully request that the Board strike the Complainants
objections and instruct the Complainants to completely respond to Respondents' request for
facts, not subject to objections .
11
David S .
eill
David S. ONeill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
DEC 1 9 2005
Complainant,
)
PCB 96-98
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Boprr
v.
)
Enforcement
SKOKIE
EDWIN LVALLEY
. FREDERICK,
ASPHALT,
JR ., individually
CO
., INC .,
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
)
RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
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 their attorney, David S . O'Neill, herein respond to Complainant's Answers
and Objections to Respondents' First Set of Interrogatories Regarding Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses and in support thereof states as follows:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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 Respondents filed with the Board and served upon the
Complainant the Respondents' First Set of Interrogatories regarding Attorneys' Fees,
Costs and Expenses .
4 .
On May 24, 2005, Complainant filed its Answer and Objections to Respondents' First Set
of Interrogatories regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses
.
5 .
In the Order of November 17, 2005, the Respondents were directed to respond to the
Complainant's Answer and Objections to Respondents' First Set of Interrogatories
regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses within thirty days of the date of the Order
.
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS
I.
RESPONSE TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The Illinois Supreme Court Rules do not provide for general objections to discovery
. The
Complainant is required to respond to each item in discovery individually and is not allowed to
apply general objections to various items requested by the Respondents
. As such, the
Respondents move to strike the Complainant's general objections as improper and non-
responsive .
1 .
The Complainant's objection that the Respondent's Set of Interrogatories is contrary to
the Board's order of April 7, 2005 requesting a resolution of the issue of attorney's fees
and cost in a speedy and ultimate resolution is baseless
. The purpose of the request to
admit facts is to expedite the discovery
. A complete first set of interrogatories that are
completely and honestly answered would eliminate the need for answers to objections and
a second set of interrogatories and would consequently result in a speedy and ultimate
resolution
. It is the Complainant's failure to respond to the interrogatories in good faith
that is contrary to the Board's Order of April 25, 2007
. The Respondents also take
exception to the Complainant's position that request are "insulting, harassing, made in
bad faith, do not pertain to attorneys' fees and costs"
. In fact, the interrogatories are
designed to address issues that the Respondents intend to raise in its arguments against
attorneys' fees including arguments involving the Complainant and its attorneys unethical
behavior, fraudulent filings, falsification of documents and intentional and knowing
violation of Board procedural rules . The fact that the Complainant feels insulted and
harassed because of inquiries into their conduct is not grounds for failing to respond to
discovery .
2.
The Complainant's are not attempting to address the issue of Mr . Stemstein's misconduct
in Interrogatory 14 . Instead, Respondents are inquiring into the culpability of Mr . Cohen,
his office and others representing the Complainant for the actions of Mr
. Stemstein. The
Respondents need to know if Mr . Sternstein was instructed to violate the Board's
procedural rules, who supervised Mr . Sternstein during the period the violations occurred,
who had knowledge of the violation, if the Complainant knew or had a duty to know the
Board's procedural rules and if the Complainant is claiming fees for work done while
participating in violations of the Board's procedural rules . The Respondents need this
information in order to prepare arguments that the Complainant should not be
compensated for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in performing, condoning or
allowing the type of work previously disallowed for recovery by the Board .
3 .
The Respondents disagree that the compensation received by the Assistant Attorneys
General is irrelevant or private . The compensation of Assistant Attorney General's is a
matter of public record
. Therefore, any claim of privacy is disingenuous . Any argument
that the compensation of the Assistant Attorneys General is irrelevant to determining the
proper compensation for legal fees to be paid for work done by Assistant Attorneys
General is almost too illogical to even allow a response . The Complainant desires to
force the Board and the Respondents to accept their fabricated hourly billing rate even
though it has no basis in the actual fee the attorneys are able to secure in the open market
.
Respondents are seeking information concerning the compensation of the Assistant
Attorneys General to prepare arguments that any payment above the fees actually paid to
and agreed to prior to judgment by the Assistant Attorneys General would result in a
windfall profit to the Complainant that is not anticipated and allowed by the statutory
language relevant to attorneys fees and costs
.
In previous responses to discovery, the Complainant used an argument of irrelevance to
avoid answering inquiries into the previous employment of the Assistant Attorney
General working on behalf of the Complainant . As a result, the Complainant was able to
conceal the fact that Mr . Sternstein had previous been employed by the Board and was
acting in violation of Board procedural rules . Therefore, any argument of relevance by
the Complainant is circumspect . If the request for discovery meets the threshold standard
of being "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial" it should be
answered by the Complainant.
4.
Twenty four interrogatories are presented in he request . The inclusion of subparts is for
the convenience of the Complainant. It is designed to allow the Complainant to know
more precisely what information the Respondents require and to format that information
to allow the parties to more readily determine if all of the requested information is being
supplied . This request does no violate the letter or the spirit of Supreme Court
Rule213©).
5 .
The Respondents are allowed to define terms in their discovery as they deem necessary
and are not subject to the review of the Complainants
. In the titling of their complaint the
Complainant pompously purports itself to be representing the People of the State of
Illinois . Now, in an effort to avoid its responsibility to respond to interrogatories, it
claims to lack authority to represent that same party
. The Respondents would appreciate
a clarification of this position and respectfully requests the Board to seek the same from
the Complainant.
If the Complainant is of the opinion that it needs to limit its response to individual items
based on the definitions provided, it may properly do so in its individual responses to an
item. The Respondents request the Board to strike this objection both because it is
improper as a general objection and because the Complainant is not of the privilege to
determine the appropriateness of the Respondents' definitions .
6 .
The Respondents are allowed to define terms in their discovery as they deem necessary
and are not subject to the review of the Complainants
. If the Complainant is of the
opinion that it needs to limit its response to individual items based on the definitions
provided, it may properly do so in its individual responses to an item
. The Respondents
request the Board to strike this objection both because it is improper as a general
objection and because the Complainant is not of the privilege to determine the
appropriateness of the Respondents' definitions
.
II. RESPONSE TO ANSWERS
Interrogatory No . 1
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Interrogatory No . 2 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 3 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Interrogatory No
. 4:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken.
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Interrogatory No . 5
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Interrogatory No . 6
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request. In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 7
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request . In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 8
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No
. 9: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken.
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 10
: The Interrogatory was intended to read "Identify any and all hours and
expenses in any matter involving you employment at the Illinois Attorney
General's office that were recorded on time sheets and expense
statements." The Complainant should be instructed to answer this request .
Interrogatory No . 11
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The terms contested by the Complainant as
vague and ambiguous are terms commonly used in the legal and business
community and do not require definition
. If Complainant desires to
further define the terms to clarify its response, it may do so in its answer .
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Interrogatory No . 12
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken.
The terms contested by the Complainant as vague and ambiguous are
terms commonly used in the legal and business community and do not
require definition . If Complainant desires to further define the terms to
clarify its response, it may do so in its answer . The Complainant needs to
either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the
objection should be stricken .
Interrogatory No . 13
: The file in this matter before the Board is loaded with documents that were
incorrectly or not timely filed . The Complainant can not sustain an
argument that this fact is not in evidence . The terms contested by the
Complainant as vague and ambiguous are terms commonly used in the
legal and business community and do not require definition. If
Complainant desires to further define the terms to clarify its response, it
may do so in its answer. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request . In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 14: The Respondents did contest Mr . Sternstein's activities in this case and the
Complainant did respond . The Board found that Mr. Sternstein's and the
Attorney General's office activity was improper. The Complainant can
not sustain an argument that this fact is not in evidence . The Complainant
needs to either object to or answer this request . The Complainant should
be instructed to answer this interrogatory .
Interrogatory No . 15 : The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request . In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No
. 16
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request . In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken .
Interrogatory No . 17: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Interrogatory No . 18: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light
of the answer offered, the objection should be stricken .
Interrogatory No . 19: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken .
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request . In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 20
: Complainant's response to this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this interrogatory
.
Interrogatory No . 21
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the objection should be
stricken.
Interrogatory No . 22
: The form of the Interrogatory is sufficient to allow the Complainant to
respond to the request
. The response offered is non-responsive and the
Complainant should be instructed to answer this interrogatory
.
Interrogatory No
. 23
: The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
.
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence at trial
. The Complainant needs to either object to or
answer this request
. The Complainant should be instructed to answer this
interrogatory.
Interrogatory No . 24
: The Interrogatory was intended to read "Supply information for the period
of time during which attorneys' fees, costs and expenses are being
requested on the Attorney General's Office's policy for preparing,
reviewing and executing affidavits and any changes to this policy during
the same period
." The Complainant should be instructed to answer this
request.
Interrogatory No . 25
: The Interrogatory was intended to read "Supply information for the period
of time during which attorneys' fees, costs and expenses are being
requested on the Attorney General's Office's policy for reprimanding or
disciplining employees that prepare and execute false affidavits
." The
request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence at trial
. The response offered by the Complainant to this
interrogatory in vague and ambiguous
. The Complainant should be
instructed to answer this interrogatory
.
Wherefore, the Respondents respectfully request that the Board strike the Complainants
objections and instruct the Complainants to completely respond to Respondents' Interrogatories,
not subject to objections .
i
David S : ONeill
David S. O'Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N
. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARLh
CLERK'S
E C E
OFFICE
I
V E D
DEC 1 9 2005
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
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
Complainant,
)
PCB 96-98
v.
)
Enforcement
RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS TO
RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REOUESTS REGARDING
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
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 their attorney, David S
. O'Neill, herein respond to the Complainant's
Answers and Objections to Respondents' First Set of Document Requests Regarding Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses and in support thereof states as follows
:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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 Respondents filed with the Board and served upon the
Complainant the Respondents' First Set of Document Request regarding Attorneys' Fees,
Costs and Expenses .
4.
On May 24, 2005, Complainant filed its Answer and Objections to Respondents' First Set
of Document Requests regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses
.
5 .
In the Order of November 17, 2005, the Respondents were directed to respond to the
Complainant's Answer and Objections to Respondents' First Request for Admission of
Facts regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses within thirty days of the date of the
Order.
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS
I.
RESPONSE TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The Illinois Supreme Court Rules do not provide for general objections to discovery
. The
Complainant is required to respond to each item in discovery individually and is not allowed to
apply general objections to various items requested by the Respondents
. As such, the
Respondents move to strike the Complainant's general objections as improper and non-
responsive .
1 .
The Complainant's objection that the Respondent's First Set of Document Requests is
contrary to the Board's order of April 7, 2005 requesting a resolution of the issue of
attorney's fees and cost in a speedy and ultimate resolution is baseless . A complete first
set of document requests that are completely and honestly answered would eliminate the
need for answers to objections and a second set of document requests and would
consequently result in a speedy and ultimate resolution . It is the Complainant's failure to
answer the request for admission of facts in good faith that is contrary to the Board's
Order of April 25, 2007 . The Respondents also take exception to the Complainant's
position that the document requests are "insulting, harassing, made in bad faith, do not
pertain to attorneys' fees and costs" . In fact, the document requests are designed to
address issues that the Respondents intend to raise in its arguments against attorneys' fees
including arguments involving the Complainant and its attorneys unethical behavior,
fraudulent filings, falsification of documents and intentional and knowing violation of
Board procedural rules . The fact that the Complainant feels insulted and harassed
because of inquiries into their conduct is not grounds for failing to respond to discovery .
2 .
The Complainant's are not attempting to address the issue of Mr . Sternstein's misconduct
in Requests No . 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 21 . Instead, Respondents are inquiring into the
culpability of Mr. Cohen, his office and others representing the Complainant for the
actions of Mr . Sternstein . The Respondents need to know if Mr . Sternstein was instructed
to violate the Board's procedural rules, who supervised Mr . Sternstein during the period
the violations occurred, who had knowledge of the violation, if the Complainant knew or
had a duty to know the Board's procedural rules and if the Complainant is claiming fees
for work done while participating in violations of the Board's procedural rules . The
Respondents need this information in order to prepare arguments that the Complainant
should not be compensated for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in performing,
condoning or allowing the type of work previously disallowed for recovery by the Board
.
3 .
The Respondents disagree that the compensation received by the Assistant Attorneys
General is irrelevant or private . The compensation of Assistant Attorney General's is a
matter of public record . Therefore, any claim of privacy is disingenuous . Any argument
that the compensation of the Assistant Attorneys General is irrelevant to determining the
proper compensation for legal fees to be paid for work done by Assistant Attorneys
General is almost too illogical to even allow a response
. The Complainant desires to
force the Board and the Respondents to accept their fabricated hourly billing rate even
though it has no basis in the actual fee the attorneys are able to secure in the open market.
Respondents are seeking information concerning the compensation of the Assistant
Attorneys General to prepare arguments that any payment above the fees actually paid to
and agreed to prior to judgment by the Assistant Attorneys General would result in a
windfall profit to the Complainant that is not anticipated and allowed by the statutory
language relevant to attorneys fees and costs
.
In previous responses to discovery, the Complainant used an argument of irrelevance to
avoid answering inquiries into the previous employment of the Assistant Attorney
General working on behalf of the Complainant
. As a result, the Complainant was able to
conceal the fact that Mr
. Sternstein had previous been employed by the Board and was
acting in violation of Board procedural rules
. Therefore, any argument of relevance by
the Complainant is circumspect
. If the request for discovery meets the threshold standard
of being "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial" it should be
answered by the Complainant.
4.
The Respondents are allowed to define terms in their discovery as they deem necessary
and are not subject to the review of the Complainants
. If the Complainant is of the
opinion that it needs to limit its response to individual items based on the definitions
provided, it may properly do so in its individual responses to an item
. The Respondents
request the Board to strike this objection both because it is improper as a general
objection and because the Complainant is not of the privilege to determine the
appropriateness of the Respondents definitions
.
When initiating this complaint, the Complainant represented itself as
the "People of the
State of Illinois"
. Now, in an effort to avoid its responsibility to respond to
interrogatories, it claims to lack authority to represent that same party
. The Respondents
would appreciate a clarification of this position and respectfully requests the Board to
seek the same from the Complainant
.
5 .
The Respondents are allowed to define terms in their discovery as
they deem necessary
and are not subject to the review of the Complainants
. If the Complainant is of the
opinion that it needs to limit its response to individual items based on the definitions
provided, it may properly do so in its individual responses to an item
. The Respondents
request the Board to strike this objection both because it is improper as a general
objection and because the Complainant is not of the privilege to determine the
appropriateness of the Respondents' definitions
.
II. RESPONSE TO ANSWERS
Document Request No
. 1 :
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at
trial
. The Complainant can not sustain an argument that a request for documents related
to the entire case is overly broad when the Complainant is requesting attorneys' fees and
expenses for the entire case
. It is the Complainant that has moved for attorneys fees and
expenses in this matter and not the Respondents
. If the Complainant at this time no
longer wish to participate in the necessary arduous process of determining the proper
attorneys' fees and expenses, the Complainant should withdraw its motion
. However,
arguments that the process is too difficult for the Complainant are not relevant
. The
Complainant should be instructed to fully respond to this request
.
Document Request No
. 2 :
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at
trial
. The Complainant can not sustain an argument that a request for documents related
to the entire case is overly broad when the Complainant is requesting attorneys' fees and
expenses for the entire case
. It is the Complainant that has moved for attorneys fees and
expenses in this matter and not the Respondents
. If the Complainant at this time no
longer wishes to participate in the necessary arduous process of determining the proper
attorneys' fees and expenses, the Complainant should withdraw its motion
. However,
arguments that the process is too difficult for the Complainant are not relevant
. The
Complainant has failed to specify its grounds for stating that the request is ambiguous
outside of the argument made in its general objections
. The reliance on general
objections is improper and should be stricken
. Respondents are unaware of any ambiguity
in this request
. The Complainant should be instructed to fully respond to this request
.
Document Request No. 3 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer
offered, the objection should be stricken
.
Document Request No. 4 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The request is
relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial. The
Complainant needs to either object to or answer this request . In light of the answer
offered, the objection should be stricken .
Document Request No. 5 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant should be
instructed to respond to this request.
Document Request No. 6:
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at
trial. The information requested required by the Respondents to present arguments
regarding the appropriate hourly fee that each attorney should charge . If the Complainant
desire to pursue attorneys' fees and expenses in this matter, it must be willing to
participate in the discovery process . If the Complainant's interest in privacy outweighs
its interest in fully adjudicating its claim for attorneys' fees and cost, it should withdraw
its petition for the attorneys' fees and expenses
. Absent such a withdrawal, the
Complainant should be instructed to respond to this request .
Document Request No. 7:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant should be
instructed to answer this request
.
Document Request No
. 8:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant should be
instructed to fully answer this request.
Document Request No. 9:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. The request is
relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant can not sustain an argument that a request for documents related to the
entire case is overly broad when the Complainant is requesting attorneys' fees and
expenses for the entire case
. It is the Complainant that has moved for attorneys fees and
expenses in this matter and not the Respondents . If the Complainant at this time no
longer wish to participate in the necessary arduous process of determining the proper
attorneys' fees and expenses, the Complainant should withdraw its motion
. However,
arguments that the process is too difficult for the Complainant are not relevant . The
Complainant should be instructed to respond to this request .
Document Request No. 10:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant should be
instructed to respond to this request
.
Document Request No. 11 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant should be
instructed to respond to this request.
Document Request No. 12:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken. If no such
documents exist the Complainant can respond accordingly . The Complainant should be
instructed to respond to this request .
Document Request No. 13:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The Complainant should be
instructed to respond to this request.
Document Request No. 14 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The term "meetings"
contains no ambiguity but Complainant can explain any limitations it found in the term in
its response to the request . If no such documents exist, the Complainant can respond
accordingly. The Complainant should be instructed to fully respond to this request .
Document Request No. 15 :
The Complainant's answer is not responsive to the document request . The Complainant
should be instructed to respond to this request .
Document Request No . 16:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The Complainant
needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the
objection should be stricken .
Document Request No . 17:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The time
records of Mr . Sternstein are relevant because the Respondents need to determine if either
Mr. Cohen or Mr. Murphy are claiming fees for work that was previously billed by Mr .
Sternstein and disallowed by the Board . The Board also desires to review Mr .
Sternstein's records to determine what work he may have performed in conjunction with
the Attorneys Claiming Fees to prepare arguments that these attorneys may not claim fees
when working with or supervising an
attorney that was acting in knowing and willful
violation of Board Procedural Rules . The Complainant should be instructed to fully
answer this request.
Document Request No . 18 :
The request is relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at
trial . The Complainant can not sustain
an argument that a request for documents related
to the entire case is overly broad when the Complainant is the party requesting attorneys'
fees and expenses for these attorneys . It is the Complainant that has moved for attorneys
fees and expenses in this matter and not the Respondents. If the Complainant at this time
no longer wishes to participate in the necessary, arduous process of determining the
proper attorneys' fees and expenses, the Complainant should withdraw its motion .
However, arguments that the process is too difficult for the Complainant are not relevant .
The Respondents are not in a position to determine if all of the requested documents are
publicly available. Additional documents may only be in the possession of the
Complainant . Therefore, the Respondents have the right to request that the Complainant
produce the documents . The Complainant should be instructed to respond to this request .
Document Request No. 19:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken . The request is
relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial . The
Complainant can not sustain an argument that a request for documents related to the
entire case is overly broad when the Complainant is the party requesting attorneys' fees
and expenses for these attorneys
. It is the Complainant that has moved for attorneys fees
and expenses in this matter and not the Respondents
. If the Complainant at this time no
longer wishes to participate in the necessary, arduous process of determining the proper
attorneys' fees and expenses, the Complainant should withdraw its motion
. However,
arguments that the process is too difficult for the Complainant are not relevant
. The
Respondents are not in a position to determine if all of the requested documents are
publicly available
. Additional documents may only be in the possession of the
Complainant
. Therefore, the Respondents have the right to request that the Complainant
produce the documents
. The Complainant should be instructed to respond to this request
.
Document Request No. 20
:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The Complainant
needs to either object to or answer this request
. In light of the answer offered, the
objection should be stricken .
Document Request No . 21 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The Complainant
should be instructed to answer this request
.
Document Request No . 22:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The Complainant
needs to either object to or respond to this request
. In light of the answer offered, the
objection should be stricken .
Document Request No
. 23 :
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The Complainant
needs to either object to or respond to this request
. In light of the answer offered, the
objection should be stricken
.
Document Request No
. 24:
The reliance on general objections is improper and should be stricken
. The request is
relevant in that it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial
. The
form of the request is adequate to allow the Complainants to respond to the request
. The
Complainant should be instructed to answer this request
.
Wherefore, the Respondents respectfully request that the Board strike the Complainants
objections and instruct the Complainants to completely respond to Respondents' document
requests, not subject to objections .
David S . O'Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N
. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
4,1 %
David S . ONeill
OFFICIAL SEAL
DENNIS R ONEILL
NOTARY PUBLIC
- STATE OF
ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION E*RES:09120101
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION OF FACTS REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO
RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND EXPENSES, RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S ANSWERS AND
OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS' FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES by hand delivery on December 19,
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 S . ONeill
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
/ 7
day of '20 ` :
