Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hitterman v. Universal Security, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

September 1, 2017

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,
v.
UNIVERSAL SECURITY, INC., Respondent.

          John P. Lynch, Jr.One of the Attorneys for Respondent

          MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF THE COURT'S ORDER

         Respondent, 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:

         1. On 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.

         2. The 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.

         3. The 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.)

         Barnett admitted:

Q. You identified yourself as somebody having access to security areas of the airport, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was a statement that was prepared well before it was given, correct?
A. Yes.
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.

         (Tr. 39-40.)

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 discipline, correct?
A. Yes.

         (Tr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.