Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
Filing
227
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/13/2007 before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Motion Hearing. Court Reporter Contact Information: APRIL METZLER, 312-408-5154, April_Metzler@ilnd.uscourts.gov. IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings. Redaction Request due 3/16/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (Metzler, April)
1
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
3
4
5
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI,
6
Plaintiff,
7
Case No. 1:06-cv-5486
v.
8
Chicago, Illinois
December 13, 2007
Motion Hearing
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW, LLP,
et al.,
9
10
11
12
Defendants.
------------------------------TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
APPEARANCES:
14
For the Plaintiff:
Edward T. Joyce & Associates
By: Arthur W. Aufmann, and
Robert D. Carroll
11 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 1600
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-2600
For the Defendants:
Novack & Macey
By: Stephen Novack, and
Steven J. Ciszewski
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 1500
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 419-6900
Court Reporter:
April M. Metzler, RPR, CRR
219 South Dearborn St., Rm. 2318-A
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 408-5154
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography;
transcript produced by notereading.
2
1
(Commenced at 10:06 a.m.)
2
THE CLERK:
06-5486, Grochocinski versus
00:00:04
3
Mayer, Brown.
00:00:08
4
00:00:09
5
00:00:13
6
THE COURT:
00:00:13
7
MR. CISZEWSKI:
00:00:14
8
Steven Ciszewski, C-i-s-z-e-w-s-k-i, also for the
00:00:19
9
defendants.
00:00:19
10
THE COURT:
00:00:19
11
MR. AUFMANN:
00:00:20
12
Arthur Aufmann and Robert Carroll on behalf of the
00:00:22
13
plaintiff.
00:00:23
14
THE COURT:
00:00:24
15
Do you object to the plaintiff's motion for
00:00:26
16
00:00:29
17
00:00:32
18
reason why we did -- why we made our objection, we have
00:00:35
19
a short fuse on this discovery period.
00:00:39
20
until the end of January --
00:00:40
21
THE COURT:
00:00:41
22
MR. NOVACK:
00:00:44
23
both the trustee and Mr. Spehar's counsel asked us for
00:00:48
24
extensions of time to respond to our discovery and to
00:00:51
25
extend the deposition dates --
MR. NOVACK:
Good morning, your Honor.
Steve Novack, N-o-v-a-c-k, on behalf of defendants.
Good morning.
Good morning, your Honor.
Good morning.
Good morning, your Honor.
Good morning.
protective order?
MR. NOVACK:
We do, your Honor.
And the
You only gave us
That's right.
-- to complete discovery.
And
3
00:00:52
1
THE COURT:
Oh, I thought I'm looking at a
00:00:54
2
motion for protective order.
00:00:57
3
looking for?
00:01:00
4
MR. AUFMANN:
00:01:01
5
THE COURT:
00:01:03
6
00:01:05
7
00:01:06
8
00:01:08
9
00:01:09
10
00:01:11
11
us for extensions -- and we accommodated them,
00:01:14
12
absolutely accommodated them -- nobody suggested to us
00:01:17
13
that there was going to be another motion, which nobody
00:01:20
14
ever told us about, asking for an interim period whereby
00:01:25
15
Mr. Spehar would produce his documents first to the
00:01:28
16
trustee, the trustee would take a period to do
00:01:31
17
something, and then there would be an intervening motion
00:01:36
18
for -- possibly an intervening motion for work-product
00:01:40
19
privilege claims.
00:01:45
20
impending January 28 cutoff, we objected.
00:01:48
21
00:01:51
22
occurred to us that without getting into all of the
00:01:54
23
issues of waiver and all the issues of whether this is
00:01:58
24
work product or not, all of which we're reserving, one
00:02:01
25
overarching observation came to us, which is they have
Isn't that what I'm
Isn't that what I have up for today?
Correct.
All right.
It's not a motion to
extend time.
MR. NOVACK:
It is not, but it will have
that effect, and that's what I'm saying.
THE COURT:
MR. NOVACK:
Oh, okay.
Go ahead.
When both those parties asked
So faced with all of that and our
And as we were looking at the situation, it
4
00:02:06
1
put into issue --
00:02:07
2
THE COURT:
00:02:07
3
MR. NOVACK:
00:02:11
4
we think trumps any possible work-product privilege
00:02:16
5
assertion.
00:02:19
6
it, and so we responded the way we responded.
00:02:22
7
THE COURT:
00:02:24
8
MR. AUFMANN:
00:02:27
9
00:02:32
10
they've filed their response two days ago.
00:02:35
11
reply as quickly as we could in order to address that
00:02:38
12
issue --
00:02:38
13
THE COURT:
00:02:40
14
MR. AUFMANN:
00:02:41
15
THE COURT:
00:02:42
16
MR. CARROLL:
00:02:44
17
if you didn't get it.
00:02:47
18
deliver it to your chambers.
00:02:48
19
00:02:50
20
00:03:02
21
Okay.
00:03:02
22
MR. AUFMANN:
00:03:04
23
00:03:09
24
00:03:12
25
Right.
-- at issue a waiver doctrine
And we thought why don't we just shortcut
Okay.
Counsel?
Judge, in terms of the at
issue waiver argument that the defendants have raised,
We filed a
Is there a reply?
It was filed yesterday.
Oh, I don't have that.
It should have -- I apologize
I did instruct somebody to
THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
I don't have that.
Well, why don't you go pull it off.
Go ahead.
In any event, I don't think
the at issue waiver doctrine applies whatsoever here.
More to the point, the procedure that we're
suggesting, I believe, is entirely reasonable.
No one
5
00:03:15
1
has challenged the fairness or the reasonableness of the
00:03:18
2
procedure we're suggesting.
00:03:21
3
really raising is that if this procedure's put into
00:03:25
4
place, it could make it difficult to comply with the
00:03:28
5
Court's discovery cutoff of January 28th.
00:03:33
6
right about that.
00:03:35
7
feeling is about potentially extending that date.
00:03:38
8
would certainly have -- since we're the ones who are
00:03:41
9
proposing this procedure -- even though we think it's
00:03:44
10
entirely fair since we are the ones who are proposing
00:03:47
11
this procedure -- we would have no objection to
00:03:49
12
extending that date, that January 28th date, so that
00:03:52
13
this procedure could be engaged in and --
00:03:55
14
THE COURT:
00:03:56
15
MR. AUFMANN:
00:03:58
16
00:03:59
17
00:04:01
18
00:04:01
19
00:04:04
20
response isn't something that -- you've put this into
00:04:08
21
play filing this lawsuit.
00:04:12
22
not this is going to be a situation of unclean hands or
00:04:16
23
not.
00:04:17
24
00:04:20
25
The only issue counsel is
He might be
I don't know what your Honor's
We
Well -To me, that's the issue that's
in front of your Honor.
THE COURT:
I'm not sure.
They're getting
me the reply.
But I don't understand why the at issue
MR. AUFMANN:
points, your Honor.
We need to address whether or
It's really -- it's really two
6
00:04:22
1
THE COURT:
Okay.
00:04:23
2
MR. AUFMANN:
00:04:24
3
understanding of what your Honor was talking about when
00:04:28
4
you allowed discovery to go forward on the unclean hands
00:04:31
5
issue.
00:04:38
6
trustee's decision not to file a motion in California to
00:04:42
7
try and vacate the default judgment.
00:04:45
8
00:04:47
9
00:04:50
10
period of time.
00:04:53
11
what was the motivation for the filing of the lawsuit,
00:04:56
12
whether the -- I mean, all of the steps leading up to
00:04:59
13
the failure to move to dismiss this suit could
00:05:03
14
potentially show intent or a pattern of behavior or some
00:05:09
15
theory by the defendants as to why this would be unclean
00:05:12
16
hands.
00:05:12
17
00:05:13
18
we've tried to address in our reply is that this whole
00:05:16
19
premise that started this unclean hands argument about,
00:05:21
20
Oh, the trustee could have just gone into California and
00:05:23
21
gotten this default vacated, that whole premise is
00:05:27
22
wrong.
00:05:28
23
00:05:30
24
That's why we're doing this.
00:05:32
25
it may be wrong, otherwise I wouldn't have permitted
We have a definite
We think it was a narrow issue directed to the
THE COURT:
Okay?
Well, it may not be.
Unclean
hands could cover your behavior throughout the whole
It's really getting to the issue as to
MR. AUFMANN:
THE COURT:
Right.
And one of the things
Well, fine.
Fair enough.
But it doesn't look like
7
00:05:35
1
this particular path of discovery to go first, so that
00:05:39
2
we could address why this is set forth in the odd way
00:05:44
3
that it's set forth.
00:05:45
4
MR. AUFMANN:
00:05:46
5
But one of the things we've done in our
00:05:48
6
reply -- whereas their arguments to you earlier about
00:05:51
7
how easy this would have been to vacate this default did
00:05:54
8
not cite California law, we provided the cite to the
00:05:57
9
statute and the requirements that must be met.
00:06:02
10
believe we've demonstrated already that those
00:06:04
11
requirements could not have been met.
00:06:06
12
00:06:08
13
00:06:09
14
MR. AUFMANN:
00:06:10
15
THE COURT:
00:06:12
16
00:06:14
17
MR. AUFMANN:
00:06:14
18
THE COURT:
00:06:21
19
MR. AUFMANN:
00:06:22
20
THE COURT:
00:06:25
21
result of our first issue really shouldn't be the
00:06:29
22
response as to today's issue, which is you want a
00:06:33
23
protective order and whether or not that protective
00:06:38
24
order can be put into play, whether we adopt the
00:06:41
25
procedure that would delay discovery.
THE COURT:
Understood.
And I
Meaning what, in discovery, is
that what you're saying, or ...
here?
No, in our reply -In the reply that I don't have
Is that it?
Right.
Okay.
But, of course --
I'm not saying --- whether that may be the end
8
00:06:44
1
MR. AUFMANN:
Right.
The argument they made
00:06:45
2
about at issue is, Judge, we never need to address any
00:06:49
3
issues of work-product privilege because -- simply
00:06:52
4
because my client in response to an accusation that
00:06:56
5
says, You filed this lawsuit in bad faith, said, No, I
00:06:59
6
didn't file it in bad faith, I filed it in good faith,
00:07:02
7
that does not put at issue any work-product privilege
00:07:09
8
documents.
00:07:09
9
00:07:11
10
issue doctrine, there must be both a claim asserted and
00:07:16
11
reliance on specific defined identifiable privileged
00:07:23
12
material.
00:07:26
13
on, you're talking about a situation where the plaintiff
00:07:28
14
said, I did not blow the statute of limitations because
00:07:32
15
my lawyer told me that I first had a claim on
00:07:36
16
such-and-such a date and the discovery rule applies
00:07:39
17
here, and, therefore, the time for my claim to run
00:07:43
18
didn't start running until my lawyer told me.
00:07:46
19
not put into issue a specific communication with his
00:07:49
20
lawyer and, thus, cannot sit back and say, No, you can't
00:07:52
21
see that communication with my lawyer, it's privileged.
00:07:55
22
It's the old you can't have your cake and eat it too.
00:07:58
23
00:08:00
24
here.
00:08:04
25
he's asserting or in defense of something that they're
In order to put -- in order to invoke the at
For example, in the case that they're relying
He has
The trustee has not done anything like that
The trustee has not either in support of a claim
9
00:08:06
1
asserting said, No, what I did was justified because I'm
00:08:10
2
relying on a specific piece of work product material.
00:08:15
3
If he had made a specific reference like that and relied
00:08:18
4
on a specific piece of work product material, he
00:08:21
5
couldn't then say, Okay, I'm relying on that, but you
00:08:24
6
can't see it.
00:08:27
7
is all about, and that hasn't happened here.
00:08:29
8
00:08:32
9
00:08:35
10
That's ridiculous, there's no evidence of bad faith.
00:08:38
11
fact, everything that's been done here is in good faith.
00:08:41
12
And they want to take the position now that because they
00:08:44
13
made a baseless accusation against him and he denied it
00:08:47
14
that suddenly all of his attorney work product is --
00:08:50
15
there's just been a complete blanket waiver?
00:08:53
16
not at all the way the at issue doctrine works --
00:08:56
17
00:08:57
18
get off the baseless accusation, otherwise I wouldn't
00:09:00
19
have ordered the discovery.
00:09:01
20
A response?
00:09:02
21
MR. NOVACK:
00:09:04
22
and who knows maybe it'll become three things, but two
00:09:08
23
things at the outset.
00:09:09
24
No. 1, this was said in their reply brief --
00:09:13
25
THE COURT:
That's what the at issue waiver doctrine
All that happened here is they accused my
guy of bad faith.
We came in on his behalf and said,
THE COURT:
Okay.
In
This is
And, again, you need to
Let me say two things Judge,
I am going to take a few minutes
10
00:09:15
1
and read the reply brief, but, go ahead and argue it --
00:09:18
2
00:09:20
3
00:09:21
4
00:09:23
5
that in a work product privilege situation there are two
00:09:25
6
requisite elements to raise the at issue waiver.
00:09:30
7
that a defense was raised that implicates it.
00:09:32
8
THE COURT:
00:09:33
9
MR. NOVACK:
00:09:34
10
they add, it's beyond the elements that we've put in our
00:09:37
11
case law -- that there must be a specific reference to
00:09:40
12
specific documents by the party claiming the
00:09:43
13
work-product privilege.
00:09:46
14
that, both by Magistrate Judge Schenkier, the Beneficial
00:09:50
15
Franchise case and the Quality Croutons case.
00:09:53
16
those cases dealt with the attorney-client privilege,
00:09:57
17
not with the work product privilege.
00:09:58
18
00:10:01
19
They're governed by separate standards.
00:10:05
20
privilege is governed by this law of the state of the
00:10:08
21
forum.
00:10:11
22
00:10:14
23
cited in -- I can't remember if we cited it or they
00:10:19
24
cited it, frankly --
00:10:19
25
MR. NOVACK:
-- one thing to you before you
do.
They make a very bold statement in there
One,
Right.
And, two -- and this is what
They cite only two cases for
Both of
We know that those privileges are different.
Attorney-client
The work product is federal law.
Judge Denlow's decision in Eagle which is
THE COURT:
Okay.
11
00:10:20
1
MR. NOVACK:
-- in the earlier briefs points
00:10:21
2
out that the standards governing attorney-client
00:10:24
3
privilege and work-product privilege are different.
00:10:27
4
00:10:29
5
apply to an attorney-client privilege.
00:10:32
6
whatsoever to do with work-product privilege.
00:10:35
7
00:10:39
8
their good faith as a defense, Judge, I would say to you
00:10:43
9
that from cradle to grave they raised it every step of
00:10:48
10
the way.
00:10:51
11
said -- and they convinced your Honor, because you
00:10:53
12
denied our motion to dismiss, that we failed to present
00:10:57
13
evidence that plaintiff acted fraudulently or in bad
00:11:00
14
faith.
00:11:02
15
Spehar's conduct we have to look to; we have to look to
00:11:05
16
the trustee.
00:11:06
17
00:11:08
18
that if they filed the case with a good-faith belief
00:11:12
19
that the malpractice claims were meritorious, then the
00:11:14
20
case cannot be a fraud on the Court.
00:11:18
21
critical element to defendants' fraud theory -- they're
00:11:23
22
interpreting our theory -- is not whether Spehar has a
00:11:27
23
financial interest in the case.
00:11:28
24
plaintiff, it is whether the trustee knowingly filed
00:11:31
25
meritless or untrue claims.
So the second element, well, it may well
It has nothing
Secondly, the notion that they didn't raise
In response to the motion to dismiss they
Your Honor agreed and said it's not just
On reconsideration they said to your Honor
They said the
According to the
That's what we're trying to
12
00:11:34
1
get at.
00:11:34
2
00:11:37
3
ruling and granted us the discovery and you asked me
00:11:40
4
what I was going to do, and I said, Well, we'll take the
00:11:43
5
trustee's deposition, which we've noticed, we'll take
00:11:47
6
Spehar's deposition, which we've noticed, and I said we
00:11:49
7
may need discovery from the former shareholders and
00:11:52
8
officers.
00:11:54
9
that?
00:11:54
10
00:11:57
11
will testify that they were never -- this is from the
00:11:59
12
transcript, I'm quoting.
00:12:02
13
that they will testify that they were never contacted by
00:12:05
14
the trustee before he filed the complaint, that they
00:12:08
15
don't believe in this complaint, and had they been asked
00:12:11
16
by the trustee they would have told him so.
00:12:13
17
00:12:16
18
was no objection.
00:12:20
19
was.
00:12:22
20
everybody when your Honor ruled that one of the avenues
00:12:25
21
of discovery was what was the good faith --
00:12:28
22
00:12:31
23
another motion that wasn't filed.
00:12:34
24
protective order, and I'm going to read all of this, and
00:12:36
25
I'll be out in a few minutes.
And when your Honor made your bifurcation
And your Honor said, Well, why do you need
I said, Because they are -- We believe they
I said this:
That we believe
Your Honor's response was, Okay.
And there
Mr. Aufmann wasn't here; Mr. Joyce
There was no objection to that.
THE COURT:
Okay.
It was clear to
I am not going down
I'm dealing with the
Okay?
13
00:27:24
1
(Recess taken.)
00:27:24
2
THE COURT:
00:27:26
3
reviewed all of the papers now, which I'm sorry I didn't
00:27:29
4
have the reply brief in hand.
00:27:34
5
know what time that it came in, but I have read it now,
00:27:37
6
and this is what I'm going to do.
00:27:39
7
It is true that my issue, I think, is
00:27:42
8
broader than the way the plaintiffs have narrowly
00:27:45
9
defined it.
00:27:48
10
communications are going to start to percolate up as
00:27:51
11
potential privileged disputes.
00:27:55
12
extending this issue of discovery to March 3rd.
00:27:59
13
ordering that a privilege log be prepared for any
00:28:03
14
document that you assert privilege on and that that
00:28:06
15
privilege log be prepared and submitted to Judge Denlow,
00:28:11
16
who's going to review it, who is your magistrate judge
00:28:13
17
on this case, by January -- well, let's see.
00:28:19
18
00:28:25
19
have to give you 'til shortly thereafter.
00:28:28
20
something that you're generating as you're doing
00:28:30
21
discovery.
00:28:33
22
Judge Denlow by March 10th, so one week after the close
00:28:37
23
of discovery.
00:28:40
24
period of time, because as requests are made they can be
00:28:43
25
brought to Judge Denlow's attention.
Okay.
Gentlemen, I have
It was filed -- I don't
That being said, all of these
And as such I'm
I am
If I give you discovery to March 3rd, I'll
It should be
So I'm going to require that you give it to
I don't think that is too short of a
14
00:28:44
1
I'm referring any issues regarding the
00:28:48
2
discovery of privilege matters to Judge Denlow.
00:28:51
3
then I will see you all again on March 19th, so strike
00:28:54
4
any other schedule, except this one, and we'll readdress
00:28:58
5
where we're headed with this issue on the 19th.
00:29:01
6
00:29:03
7
you believe that it's something that's privileged and
00:29:05
8
shouldn't be turned over, you're going to need to
00:29:08
9
address it with Judge Denlow.
00:29:09
10
MR. AUFMANN:
00:29:11
11
THE COURT:
00:29:13
12
And I'm going to give Judge Denlow a call right now and
00:29:17
13
explain the situation so he knows what's coming.
00:29:19
14
MR. NOVACK:
00:29:21
15
THE COURT:
00:29:21
16
MR. NOVACK:
00:29:23
17
Because it sounds like what's going to
00:29:25
18
happen is Spehar, instead of producing it to us, it
00:29:27
19
sounds like it's going to be produced to the trustee.
00:29:30
20
And I just wonder if the order could require that Spehar
00:29:34
21
Bates stamp all the documents that it produces to the
00:29:37
22
trustee, keep a copy, so there's never --
00:29:40
23
00:29:42
24
idea, and that's something I've done in the past when I
00:29:45
25
was litigating and I think that's very helpful.
And
So move forward with your requests, and if
THE COURT:
Is March 19th a status date?
It is for me, not Judge Denlow.
Okay?
Judge, could I ask one thing -Yes.
-- to be included in the order?
I think that's a very helpful
15
00:29:47
1
00:29:50
2
be Bates stamped so we know exactly what he is
00:29:52
3
reviewing, and then that set goes to the judge and the
00:29:55
4
judge reviews it.
00:29:58
5
MR. NOVACK:
00:30:00
6
MR. AUFMANN:
00:30:00
7
MR. NOVACK:
00:30:03
8
they're asking for is that instead of Spehar responding
00:30:06
9
to our subpoena -- I believe this is what they asked
00:30:08
10
00:30:08
11
THE COURT:
00:30:09
12
MR. NOVACK:
00:30:11
13
THE COURT:
00:30:11
14
MR. NOVACK:
00:30:13
15
THE COURT:
00:30:17
16
MR. CARROLL:
00:30:17
17
the Bates number of the documents being withheld on the
00:30:18
18
basis of privilege on the privilege log.
00:30:21
19
00:30:23
20
00:30:24
21
MR. NOVACK:
00:30:24
22
THE COURT:
23
(Concluded at 10:36 a.m.)
24
25
So as you give it to the trustee, it would
You should be fine with that.
Well, it's actually -Thank you.
Spehar isn't here today.
What
for --
THE COURT:
should be.
Okay.
I know.
-- he send it to them.
Right.
So I'm asking Spehar -Yes, that is fine.
We understand.
Exactly.
And we'll put
That's the way it
Thank you.
Thank you, your Honor.
Thank you.
- - -
16
1
2
3
4
5
C E R T I F I C A T E
6
7
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
8
from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled
9
matter.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April M. Metzler, RPR, CRR
Date
1
0
06-5486 [1] - 2:2
1
1 [1] - 9:24
100 [1] - 1:19
10:06 [1] - 2:1
10:36 [1] - 15:23
10th [1] - 13:22
11 [1] - 1:16
13 [1] - 1:6
1500 [1] - 1:19
1600 [1] - 1:16
19th [3] - 14:3, 14:5, 14:10
1:06-cv-5486 [1] - 1:5
2
2007 [1] - 1:6
219 [1] - 1:23
2318-A [1] - 1:23
28 [1] - 3:20
28th [2] - 5:5, 5:12
3
312 [3] - 1:17, 1:20, 1:24
3rd [2] - 13:12, 13:18
4
408-5154 [1] - 1:24
419-6900 [1] - 1:20
6
60603 [1] - 1:16
60604 [1] - 1:23
60606 [1] - 1:20
641-2600 [1] - 1:17
A
a.m [2] - 2:1, 15:23
above-entitled [1] - 16:8
absolutely [1] - 3:12
accommodated [2] - 3:11, 3:12
According [1] - 11:23
accusation [3] - 8:4, 9:13, 9:18
accused [1] - 9:8
acted [1] - 11:13
add [1] - 10:10
address [6] - 4:11, 5:21, 6:18, 7:2, 8:2,
14:9
adopt [1] - 7:24
ago [1] - 4:10
agreed [1] - 11:14
ahead [3] - 3:9, 4:21, 10:1
al [1] - 1:8
allowed [1] - 6:4
apologize [1] - 4:16
APPEARANCES [1] - 1:13
applies [2] - 4:23, 8:16
apply [1] - 11:5
April [2] - 1:22, 16:12
argue [1] - 10:1
argument [3] - 4:9, 6:19, 8:1
arguments [1] - 7:6
Arthur [2] - 1:15, 2:12
assert [1] - 13:14
asserted [1] - 8:10
asserting [2] - 8:25, 9:1
assertion [1] - 4:5
Associates [1] - 1:14
attention [1] - 13:25
Attorney [1] - 10:19
attorney [4] - 9:14, 10:16, 11:2, 11:5
attorney-client [3] - 10:16, 11:2, 11:5
Attorney-client [1] - 10:19
AUFMANN [16] - 2:11, 3:4, 4:8, 4:14,
4:22, 5:15, 5:24, 6:2, 6:17, 7:4, 7:14,
7:17, 7:19, 8:1, 14:10, 15:6
Aufmann [3] - 1:15, 2:12, 12:18
avenues [1] - 12:20
B
bad [5] - 8:5, 8:6, 9:9, 9:10, 11:13
baseless [2] - 9:13, 9:18
basis [1] - 15:18
Bates [3] - 14:21, 15:2, 15:17
become [1] - 9:22
BEFORE [1] - 1:11
behalf [3] - 2:5, 2:12, 9:9
behavior [2] - 6:9, 6:14
belief [1] - 11:18
Beneficial [1] - 10:14
beyond [1] - 10:10
bifurcation [1] - 12:2
blanket [1] - 9:15
blow [1] - 8:14
bold [1] - 10:4
brief [3] - 9:24, 10:1, 13:4
briefs [1] - 11:1
broader [1] - 13:8
brought [1] - 13:25
Brown [1] - 2:3
BROWN [1] - 1:8
C
cake [1] - 8:22
California [3] - 6:6, 6:20, 7:8
cannot [2] - 8:20, 11:20
Carroll [2] - 1:15, 2:12
CARROLL [2] - 4:16, 15:16
case [8] - 8:12, 10:11, 10:15, 11:18,
11:20, 11:23, 13:17
Case [1] - 1:5
cases [2] - 10:13, 10:16
certainly [1] - 5:8
certify [1] - 16:7
challenged [1] - 5:1
chambers [1] - 4:18
Chicago [4] - 1:6, 1:16, 1:20, 1:23
CISZEWSKI [2] - 2:7, 2:8
Ciszewski [2] - 1:19, 2:8
cite [3] - 7:8, 10:13
cited [3] - 10:23, 10:24
claim [4] - 8:10, 8:15, 8:17, 8:24
claiming [1] - 10:12
claims [3] - 3:19, 11:19, 11:25
clear [1] - 12:19
CLERK [1] - 2:2
client [5] - 8:4, 10:16, 10:19, 11:2, 11:5
close [1] - 13:22
coming [1] - 14:13
Commenced [1] - 2:1
communication [2] - 8:19, 8:21
communications [1] - 13:10
complaint [2] - 12:14, 12:15
complete [2] - 2:22, 9:15
comply [1] - 5:4
Concluded [1] - 15:23
conduct [1] - 11:15
contacted [1] - 12:13
convinced [1] - 11:11
copy [1] - 14:22
Correct [1] - 3:4
correct [1] - 16:7
Counsel [1] - 4:7
counsel [2] - 2:23, 5:2
course [1] - 7:18
Court [2] - 1:22, 11:20
COURT [36] - 1:2, 2:6, 2:10, 2:14, 2:21,
3:1, 3:5, 3:9, 4:2, 4:7, 4:13, 4:15, 4:19,
5:14, 5:17, 6:1, 6:8, 6:23, 7:12, 7:15,
7:18, 7:20, 9:17, 9:25, 10:8, 10:25,
12:22, 13:2, 14:11, 14:15, 14:23, 15:11,
15:13, 15:15, 15:19, 15:22
Court's [1] - 5:5
cover [1] - 6:9
cradle [1] - 11:9
critical [1] - 11:21
Croutons [1] - 10:15
CRR [2] - 1:22, 16:12
cutoff [2] - 3:20, 5:5
D
Date [1] - 16:12
date [5] - 5:7, 5:12, 8:16, 14:10
dates [1] - 2:25
DAVID [1] - 1:5
days [1] - 4:10
dealing [1] - 12:23
dealt [1] - 10:16
Dearborn [1] - 1:23
December [1] - 1:6
decision [2] - 6:6, 10:22
default [3] - 6:7, 6:21, 7:7
2
defendants [4] - 2:5, 2:9, 4:9, 6:15
Defendants [2] - 1:9, 1:18
defendants' [1] - 11:21
defense [3] - 8:25, 10:7, 11:8
defined [2] - 8:11, 13:9
definite [1] - 6:2
delay [1] - 7:25
deliver [1] - 4:18
demonstrated [1] - 7:10
denied [2] - 9:13, 11:12
Denlow [6] - 13:15, 13:22, 14:2, 14:9,
14:11, 14:12
Denlow's [2] - 10:22, 13:25
deposition [3] - 2:25, 12:5, 12:6
different [2] - 10:18, 11:3
difficult [1] - 5:4
directed [1] - 6:5
discovery [18] - 2:19, 2:22, 2:24, 5:5,
6:4, 7:1, 7:12, 7:25, 8:16, 9:19, 12:3,
12:7, 12:21, 13:12, 13:18, 13:21, 13:23,
14:2
dismiss [3] - 6:13, 11:10, 11:12
disputes [1] - 13:11
DISTRICT [3] - 1:2, 1:2, 1:12
DIVISION [1] - 1:3
doctrine [5] - 4:3, 4:23, 8:10, 9:6, 9:16
document [1] - 13:14
documents [5] - 3:15, 8:8, 10:12,
14:21, 15:17
done [4] - 7:5, 8:23, 9:11, 14:24
down [1] - 12:22
E
Eagle [1] - 10:22
EASTERN [1] - 1:3
easy [1] - 7:7
eat [1] - 8:22
Edward [1] - 1:14
effect [1] - 3:8
either [1] - 8:24
element [2] - 11:4, 11:21
elements [2] - 10:6, 10:10
end [2] - 2:20, 7:20
engaged [1] - 5:13
entirely [2] - 4:25, 5:10
entitled [1] - 16:8
et [1] - 1:8
event [1] - 4:22
evidence [2] - 9:10, 11:13
Exactly [1] - 15:19
exactly [1] - 15:2
example [1] - 8:12
except [1] - 14:4
explain [1] - 14:13
extend [2] - 2:25, 3:6
extending [3] - 5:7, 5:12, 13:12
extensions [2] - 2:24, 3:11
F
faced [1] - 3:19
fact [1] - 9:11
failed [1] - 11:12
failure [1] - 6:13
Fair [1] - 6:23
fair [1] - 5:10
fairness [1] - 5:1
faith [10] - 8:5, 8:6, 9:9, 9:10, 9:11,
11:8, 11:14, 11:18, 12:21
federal [1] - 10:21
few [2] - 9:25, 12:25
file [2] - 6:6, 8:6
filed [10] - 4:10, 4:14, 8:5, 8:6, 11:18,
11:24, 12:14, 12:23, 13:4
filing [2] - 5:21, 6:11
financial [1] - 11:23
fine [3] - 6:23, 15:4, 15:15
first [4] - 3:15, 7:1, 7:21, 8:15
foregoing [1] - 16:7
former [1] - 12:7
forth [2] - 7:2, 7:3
forum [1] - 10:21
forward [2] - 6:4, 14:6
Franchise [1] - 10:15
frankly [1] - 10:24
fraud [2] - 11:20, 11:21
fraudulently [1] - 11:13
front [1] - 5:16
fuse [1] - 2:19
G
generating [1] - 13:20
Gentlemen [1] - 13:2
good-faith [1] - 11:18
governed [2] - 10:19, 10:20
governing [1] - 11:2
granted [1] - 12:3
grave [1] - 11:9
Grochocinski [1] - 2:2
GROCHOCINSKI [1] - 1:5
guy [1] - 9:9
H
hand [1] - 13:4
hands [5] - 5:22, 6:4, 6:9, 6:16, 6:19
headed [1] - 14:5
Hearing [1] - 1:7
HEARING [1] - 1:11
helpful [2] - 14:23, 14:25
Honor [14] - 2:4, 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 5:16,
5:25, 6:3, 11:11, 11:14, 11:17, 12:2,
12:8, 12:20, 15:21
Honor's [2] - 5:6, 12:17
HONORABLE [1] - 1:11
I
idea [1] - 14:24
identifiable [1] - 8:11
IL [3] - 1:16, 1:20, 1:23
ILLINOIS [1] - 1:2
Illinois [1] - 1:6
impending [1] - 3:20
implicates [1] - 10:7
included [1] - 14:16
instead [2] - 14:18, 15:8
instruct [1] - 4:17
intent [1] - 6:14
interest [1] - 11:23
interim [1] - 3:14
interpreting [1] - 11:22
intervening [2] - 3:17, 3:18
invoke [1] - 8:9
issue [23] - 4:1, 4:3, 4:9, 4:12, 4:23,
5:2, 5:15, 5:19, 6:5, 6:10, 7:21, 7:22,
8:2, 8:7, 8:10, 8:19, 9:6, 9:16, 10:6,
13:7, 13:12, 14:5
issues [4] - 3:23, 8:3, 14:1
it'll [1] - 9:22
J
January [5] - 2:20, 3:20, 5:5, 5:12,
13:17
Joyce [2] - 1:14, 12:18
judge [3] - 13:16, 15:3, 15:4
Judge [14] - 4:8, 8:2, 9:21, 10:14,
10:22, 11:8, 13:15, 13:22, 13:25, 14:2,
14:9, 14:11, 14:12, 14:14
JUDGE [1] - 1:12
judgment [1] - 6:7
justified [1] - 9:1
K
keep [1] - 14:22
KENDALL [1] - 1:11
knowingly [1] - 11:24
knows [2] - 9:22, 14:13
L
LaSalle [1] - 1:16
law [4] - 7:8, 10:11, 10:20, 10:21
lawsuit [3] - 5:21, 6:11, 8:5
lawyer [4] - 8:15, 8:18, 8:20, 8:21
leading [1] - 6:12
limitations [1] - 8:14
litigating [1] - 14:25
LLP [1] - 1:8
log [3] - 13:13, 13:15, 15:18
look [3] - 6:24, 11:15
looking [3] - 3:1, 3:3, 3:21
M
Macey [1] - 1:18
3
magistrate [1] - 13:16
Magistrate [1] - 10:14
malpractice [1] - 11:19
March [5] - 13:12, 13:18, 13:22, 14:3,
14:10
material [3] - 8:12, 9:2, 9:4
matter [1] - 16:9
matters [1] - 14:2
MAW [1] - 1:8
Mayer [1] - 2:3
MAYER [1] - 1:8
mean [1] - 6:12
Meaning [1] - 7:12
mechanical [1] - 1:25
meritless [1] - 11:25
meritorious [1] - 11:19
met [2] - 7:9, 7:11
Metzler [2] - 1:22, 16:12
might [1] - 5:5
minutes [2] - 9:25, 12:25
morning [6] - 2:4, 2:6, 2:7, 2:10, 2:11,
2:14
Motion [1] - 1:7
motion [10] - 2:15, 3:2, 3:5, 3:13, 3:17,
3:18, 6:6, 11:10, 11:12, 12:23
MOTION [1] - 1:11
motivation [1] - 6:11
move [2] - 6:13, 14:6
MR [36] - 2:4, 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:22, 3:4,
3:7, 3:10, 4:3, 4:8, 4:14, 4:16, 4:22,
5:15, 5:24, 6:2, 6:17, 7:4, 7:14, 7:17,
7:19, 8:1, 9:21, 10:2, 10:9, 11:1, 14:10,
14:14, 14:16, 15:5, 15:6, 15:7, 15:12,
15:14, 15:16, 15:21
must [3] - 7:9, 8:10, 10:11
N
narrow [1] - 6:5
narrowly [1] - 13:8
need [6] - 5:21, 8:2, 9:17, 12:7, 12:8,
14:8
never [4] - 8:2, 12:11, 12:13, 14:22
nobody [2] - 3:12, 3:13
NORTHERN [1] - 1:2
notereading [1] - 1:25
nothing [1] - 11:5
noticed [2] - 12:5, 12:6
notion [1] - 11:7
NOVACK [18] - 2:4, 2:5, 2:17, 2:22,
3:7, 3:10, 4:3, 9:21, 10:2, 10:9, 11:1,
14:14, 14:16, 15:5, 15:7, 15:12, 15:14,
15:21
Novack [3] - 1:18, 1:18, 2:5
number [1] - 15:17
O
object [1] - 2:15
objected [1] - 3:20
objection [4] - 2:18, 5:11, 12:18, 12:19
observation [1] - 3:25
occurred [1] - 3:22
odd [1] - 7:2
OF [2] - 1:2, 1:11
officers [1] - 12:8
old [1] - 8:22
one [9] - 3:24, 4:25, 6:17, 7:5, 10:2,
12:20, 13:22, 14:4, 14:14
One [1] - 10:6
ones [2] - 5:8, 5:10
order [10] - 2:16, 3:2, 4:11, 7:23, 7:24,
8:9, 12:24, 14:16, 14:20
ordered [1] - 9:19
ordering [1] - 13:13
otherwise [2] - 6:25, 9:18
outset [1] - 9:23
overarching [1] - 3:25
P
papers [1] - 13:3
particular [1] - 7:1
parties [1] - 3:10
party [1] - 10:12
past [1] - 14:24
path [1] - 7:1
pattern [1] - 6:14
percolate [1] - 13:10
period [5] - 2:19, 3:14, 3:16, 6:10,
13:24
permitted [1] - 6:25
piece [2] - 9:2, 9:4
place [1] - 5:4
Plaintiff [2] - 1:6, 1:14
plaintiff [4] - 2:13, 8:13, 11:13, 11:24
plaintiff's [1] - 2:15
plaintiffs [1] - 13:8
play [2] - 5:21, 7:24
Plaza [1] - 1:19
point [1] - 4:24
points [2] - 5:25, 11:1
position [1] - 9:12
possible [1] - 4:4
possibly [1] - 3:18
potential [1] - 13:11
potentially [2] - 5:7, 6:14
premise [2] - 6:19, 6:21
prepared [2] - 13:13, 13:15
present [1] - 11:12
privilege [19] - 3:19, 4:4, 8:3, 8:7, 10:5,
10:13, 10:16, 10:17, 10:20, 11:3, 11:5,
11:6, 13:13, 13:14, 13:15, 14:2, 15:18
privileged [4] - 8:11, 8:21, 13:11, 14:7
privileges [1] - 10:18
procedure [6] - 4:24, 5:2, 5:9, 5:11,
5:13, 7:25
procedure's [1] - 5:3
proceedings [1] - 16:8
Proceedings [1] - 1:25
produce [1] - 3:15
produced [2] - 1:25, 14:19
produces [1] - 14:21
producing [1] - 14:18
product [14] - 3:18, 3:24, 4:4, 8:3, 8:7,
9:2, 9:4, 9:14, 10:5, 10:13, 10:17,
10:21, 11:3, 11:6
proposing [2] - 5:9, 5:10
protective [5] - 2:16, 3:2, 7:23, 12:24
provided [1] - 7:8
pull [1] - 4:20
put [9] - 4:1, 5:3, 5:20, 7:24, 8:7, 8:9,
8:19, 10:10, 15:16
Q
Quality [1] - 10:15
quickly [1] - 4:11
quoting [1] - 12:12
R
raise [2] - 10:6, 11:7
raised [3] - 4:9, 10:7, 11:9
raising [1] - 5:3
read [3] - 10:1, 12:24, 13:5
readdress [1] - 14:4
really [5] - 5:3, 5:24, 6:10, 7:21
reason [1] - 2:18
reasonable [1] - 4:25
reasonableness [1] - 5:1
Recess [1] - 13:1
reconsideration [1] - 11:17
record [1] - 16:8
recorded [1] - 1:25
reference [2] - 9:3, 10:11
referring [1] - 14:1
regarding [1] - 14:1
reliance [1] - 8:11
relied [1] - 9:3
relying [3] - 8:12, 9:2, 9:5
remember [1] - 10:23
reply [10] - 4:11, 4:13, 5:18, 6:18, 7:6,
7:14, 7:15, 9:24, 10:1, 13:4
Reporter [1] - 1:22
requests [2] - 13:24, 14:6
require [2] - 13:21, 14:20
requirements [2] - 7:9, 7:11
requisite [1] - 10:6
reserving [1] - 3:24
respond [1] - 2:24
responded [2] - 4:6
responding [1] - 15:8
response [7] - 4:10, 5:20, 7:22, 8:4,
9:20, 11:10, 12:17
result [1] - 7:21
review [1] - 13:16
reviewed [1] - 13:3
reviewing [1] - 15:3
reviews [1] - 15:4
4
ridiculous [1] - 9:10
Riverside [1] - 1:19
Rm [1] - 1:23
Robert [2] - 1:15, 2:12
ROWE [1] - 1:8
RPR [2] - 1:22, 16:12
rule [1] - 8:16
ruled [1] - 12:20
ruling [1] - 12:3
run [1] - 8:17
running [1] - 8:18
S
schedule [1] - 14:4
Schenkier [1] - 10:14
second [1] - 11:4
Secondly [1] - 11:7
see [4] - 8:21, 9:6, 13:17, 14:3
send [1] - 15:12
separate [1] - 10:19
set [3] - 7:2, 7:3, 15:3
shareholders [1] - 12:7
short [2] - 2:19, 13:23
shortcut [1] - 4:5
shortly [1] - 13:19
show [1] - 6:14
simply [1] - 8:3
sit [1] - 8:20
situation [5] - 3:21, 5:22, 8:13, 10:5,
14:13
sorry [1] - 13:3
sounds [2] - 14:17, 14:19
South [1] - 1:23
specific [7] - 8:11, 8:19, 9:2, 9:3, 9:4,
10:11, 10:12
Spehar [7] - 3:15, 11:22, 14:18, 14:20,
15:7, 15:8, 15:14
Spehar's [3] - 2:23, 11:15, 12:6
St [2] - 1:16, 1:23
stamp [1] - 14:21
stamped [1] - 15:2
standards [2] - 10:19, 11:2
start [2] - 8:18, 13:10
started [1] - 6:19
state [1] - 10:20
statement [1] - 10:4
STATES [2] - 1:2, 1:12
status [1] - 14:10
statute [2] - 7:9, 8:14
Ste [2] - 1:16, 1:19
stenography [1] - 1:25
step [1] - 11:9
Stephen [1] - 1:18
steps [1] - 6:12
Steve [1] - 2:5
Steven [2] - 1:19, 2:8
strike [1] - 14:3
submitted [1] - 13:15
subpoena [1] - 15:9
such-and-such [1] - 8:16
suddenly [1] - 9:14
suggested [1] - 3:12
suggesting [2] - 4:25, 5:2
suit [1] - 6:13
support [1] - 8:24
T
terms [1] - 4:8
testify [2] - 12:11, 12:13
THE [37] - 1:11, 2:2, 2:6, 2:10, 2:14,
2:21, 3:1, 3:5, 3:9, 4:2, 4:7, 4:13, 4:15,
4:19, 5:14, 5:17, 6:1, 6:8, 6:23, 7:12,
7:15, 7:18, 7:20, 9:17, 9:25, 10:8,
10:25, 12:22, 13:2, 14:11, 14:15, 14:23,
15:11, 15:13, 15:15, 15:19, 15:22
theory [3] - 6:15, 11:21, 11:22
thereafter [1] - 13:19
therefore [1] - 8:17
they've [1] - 4:10
three [1] - 9:22
throughout [1] - 6:9
today [2] - 3:3, 15:7
today's [1] - 7:22
TRANSCRIPT [1] - 1:11
transcript [3] - 1:25, 12:12, 16:7
tried [1] - 6:18
true [1] - 13:7
trumps [1] - 4:4
trustee [13] - 2:23, 3:16, 6:20, 8:23,
8:24, 11:16, 11:24, 12:14, 12:16, 14:19,
14:22, 15:1
trustee's [2] - 6:6, 12:5
try [1] - 6:7
trying [1] - 11:25
turned [1] - 14:8
two [7] - 4:10, 5:24, 9:21, 9:22, 10:5,
10:9, 10:13
U
unclean [4] - 5:22, 6:4, 6:15, 6:19
Unclean [1] - 6:8
Understood [1] - 7:4
UNITED [2] - 1:2, 1:12
untrue [1] - 11:25
up [3] - 3:3, 6:12, 13:10
V
vacate [2] - 6:7, 7:7
vacated [1] - 6:21
versus [1] - 2:2
VIRGINIA [1] - 1:11
W
waiver [7] - 3:23, 4:3, 4:9, 4:23, 9:6,
9:15, 10:6
week [1] - 13:22
whatsoever [2] - 4:23, 11:6
whereas [1] - 7:6
whereby [1] - 3:14
whole [3] - 6:9, 6:18, 6:21
withheld [1] - 15:17
wonder [1] - 14:20
work-product [7] - 3:18, 4:4, 8:3, 8:7,
10:13, 11:3, 11:6
works [1] - 9:16
Y
yesterday [1] - 4:14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?