United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
PAUL HITTERMAN, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 13 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
UNIVERSAL SECURITY, INC., Respondent.
P. Lynch, Jr.One of the Attorneys for Respondent
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND TO STAY THE
EXECUTION OF THE COURT'S ORDER
UNIVERSAL SECURITY, INC. (“Universal”), by its
attorneys, John P. Lynch, Jr., William P. Bingle, and CREMER,
SPINA, SHAUGHNESSY, JANSEN & SIEGERT, LLC., moves this
Court for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60
and to stay the execution of the Court's August 17, 2017
Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62 pending disposition of the
motion for relief from judgment, and in support thereof
states as follows:
motion and just terms, a district court may correct a mistake
arising from oversight when one is found in the record and
may relieve a party from a final judgment for such mistake
and/or other reasons justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)
& (b). A motion for relief from judgment is proper where
the court has misunderstood a party. Bank of Waunakee v.
Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191
(7th Cir.1990). Relief under Rule 60(b) is
warranted upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances
creating a substantial danger that the judgment was unjust.
Dickerson v. Board of Educ. of Ford Heights, 32 F.3d
1114, 1116 (7thDist. 1994). Respectfully,
Universal argues here that several key matters were
overlooked and/or misunderstood in this Court's August
17, 2017 order and, as such, Court's judgment was unjust
and should be vacated.
predominant - and almost singular - focus in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order is whether Subijano and Barnett disclosed
sensitive security information (“SSI”). While
they clearly disclosed SSI in their unfortunate statements to
the media, this is not all they did wrong and was not the
only basis for their terminations. Subijano and Barnett also
disclosed confidential information in violation of state law
and their training, which was an independent, sufficient
cause for their terminations. This important issue was
ignored by the Court - much as it was ignored by the
petitioner. (Doc. 27, pp. 11-14.) Universal's argument
did not hinge on a determination that Subijano and Barnett
disclosed SSI - although they clearly did.
Court noted early on in its decision that the terminations
were due in part to disclosures by the complainants of the
details of their security work at O'Hare, but
its analysis of that issue stopped there. (Memorandum Opinion
and Order, p. 5.) It was well established that Subijano and
Barnett were trained that the details of their jobs
were not to be disclosed to unauthorized persons. (Tr. 321.)
Through this training process (mandated by the City of
Chicago) they were aware that their job duties were
confidential and were not to be disclosed to unauthorized
persons. (Tr. 89, 321.) The Illinois Department of
Professional Regulations (“IDPR”) prohibits
Universal's guards from disclosing confidential
information learned within the course of their employment.
Both Subijano and Barnett, however, admittedly disclosed such
confidential information. (Doc. 27, pp. 9-11.)
Q. You identified yourself as somebody having access to
security areas of the airport, true?
Q. And that was a statement that was prepared well before it
was given, correct?
Q. And you didn't discuss with anybody, with Universal,
or with the City or with TSA that you were going to give that
statement, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you're advised that if you divulge confidential
information or sensitive security information to people who
are not otherwise authorized to know, that could lead to