March 28, 2014 at 12:43 p.m.
Hwy. Y lawsuit heats up
Plaintiffs object to questions about legal fees, union affiliation
Hwy. Y lawsuit heats up
The residents, Jim Tyler and Nicholas Schreurs, claim they should not be forced to testify in depositions in the case. A hearing on that request is scheduled for next week.
The lawsuit alleges county officials violated state law and improperly awarded a bid contract for reconstruction of a stretch of Hwy. Y - allegations the county has denied.
Just who is behind the lawsuit, however, is murky.
The Lakeland Times revealed last year that the plaintiffs' lawyer, William Cole, is linked to a Madison group that claims to investigate and privately enforce bid laws. That firm, Construction Business Group, describes itself as a "joint labor-management organization" and referred the Hwy. Y suit to Cole, according to the group's executive director, Robb Kahl.
Kahl is also a Democratic state legislator from Monona.
Half of Construction Business Group's board of trustees is from construction companies, and the other half is from the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139, a labor union. Construction Business Group has the same mailing address as the Madison office of the union.
In preparing for the trial, Oneida County Corporation Counsel Brian Desmond sent written questions to the plaintiffs asking how they became involved in the lawsuit, who is paying their legal fees, whether they belong to labor unions and whether they have been employed by or did any work for the contractors that filed bids for the Hwy Y. project.
Tyler and Schreurs largely objected to those questions and in some cases, refused to answer them.
Among their responses:
• Schreurs and Tyler objected to being asked how they became aware of the Hwy. Y project, but they both answered the question. Schreurs said he became aware of the project through a newsletter he received from a union. Tyler said he learned of the project "through a colleague."
• Tyler and Schreurs both objected to a question asking how they came to be plaintiffs in the case, and did not supply an answer.
• Tyler and Schreurs both objected to and did not answer a question asking who is paying for their legal fees.
• Tyler and Schreurs also objected to a question asking if they were members of any trade organizations, unions or trade associations in the last 10 years. But both plaintiffs answered, saying they were members of the International Union of Operating Engineers.
• Tyler and Schreurs said they were not involved in preparing any bids for the Hwy. Y project and had not worked for any of the companies that had submitted bids on the project within the last 10 years.
• Tyler and Schreurs also objected to and did not answer a question asking whether they had been in contact with any person from Construction Business Group or the International Union of Operating Engineers regarding the Hwy. Y project.
Desmond also asked Schreurs about statements he made to a Lakeland Times reporter about the case.
"[P]lease explain why you were told to tell the reporter 'no comment' with regards to questions about who is paying the legal fees for this case and who instructed you to not comment on matters regarding legal fees," Desmond's question stated.
Schreurs objected to the question and did not answer.
On March 17, Desmond issued subpoenas for Tyler and Schreurs to attend depositions, which would require them to answer questions under oath.
That same week, their attorney, Cole, filed a motion in Oneida County Circuit Court seeking to quash the subpoenas.
Cole claims that the county's questions were "not material to the issues in contention" and that requiring Tyler and Schreurs to drive to Rhinelander for a deposition would be "oppressive and constitutes an undue burden and expense on them."
In an email to Desmond, Cole said that he saw no reason to depose Tyler and Schreurs.
"As our discovery responses make clear, they were named for standing purposes only, and have no information or dealings concerning the Hwy. Y project," Cole wrote.
Desmond said that he was unaware of any statutes or legal precedent that "allows for opposing counsel to determine who will be deposed."
"I have also never seen a lawsuit where the plaintiffs are not subject to deposition," Desmond wrote. "Your clients may be called as witnesses at trial once they have been deposed and I have had a chance to review their testimony."
But Cole did reveal that Tyler and Schreurs were being used by whoever is behind the lawsuit for only a technical purpose: The plaintiffs needed to be Oneida County residents.
"[T]he individual plaintiffs were named for standing purposes only," Cole wrote in a court filing.
He continued: "This is a challenge to the award of a public construction contract by Oneida County, of which (Tyler and Schreurs) are simply resident taxpayers."
Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom is scheduled to hear arguments over the county's subpoenas on Tuesday.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]
Comments:
You must login to comment.