UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JACK and RENEE BEAM,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 07-cv-1227

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

vs.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

On July 27, 2010, the parties appeared before the Court for argument on Defendant’s motion

in limine. In their motion, Defendants sought, inter alia, to preclude Plaintiffs’ from introducing

into evidence their written responses to Defendant Federal Election Commission’s allegations that

they violated federal campaign finance laws by allegedly being reimbursed for their contributions.

Plaintiffs’ filed a written response to Defendant’s motion in limine arguing, among other

things, that their written responses to Defendant Commission’s accusations were relevant and

probative of the issues in this case. Specifically, Jack and Renee Beam both denied in their letters

that they were reimbursed for their campaign contributions. According to the testimony of

Defendant’s agents, including attorneys, the Commission generally must look at an individual’s bank

records to determine whether he or she was reimbursed for a campaign contribution. 

Here, the FEC accused Plaintiffs of being reimbursed for their campaign contributions which,

the Commission alleged, was a violation of federal campaign finance laws. Plaintiffs’ written

responses (one subject of Defendant’s motion in limine) are directly relevant to the issue of whether

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 196 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Defendant Commission would have needed to obtain Plaintiffs’ bank records. 

In other words, because Plaintiffs had denied being reimbursed for their campaign

contributions, Defendant Commission, by necessity, would have needed to look at Plaintiffs’ bank

records. Plaintiffs’ written responses to the Commission are thus directly relevant to whether

Defendant Commission obtained and/or received Plaintiffs’ bank records. The crux of this entire

lawsuit is whether Defendant Federal Election Commission obtained, received, and/or exchange

Plaintiffs’ bank records in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. Plaintiffs’ written

responses are thus relevant within the meaning of F.R.E. 401 and should not be excluded from

evidence.

Moreover, Defendant FEC recently offered the same letters into evidence as exhibits to the

deposition of Ms. Audra Wassom-Beys. How then can Defendant Commission use Plaintiffs’

written responses to elicit deposition testimony but then argue that Plaintiffs cannot use same during

the trial on the merits? 

During oral arguments before this Court, the parties never addressed this particular issue

raised in Defendant’s motion in limine. And while the undersigned counsel agreed, in part, to some

of the issues raised in their motion, the issue of Plaintiffs’ written response letters to the Commission

were never addressed by either party or the Court. Indeed, it was only after the hearing when the

Court issued its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion in Limine that Plaintiffs first learned that their

written response letters were ruled inadmissible at trial. 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 196 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 3
-3-

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court reconsider its

Order Granting Defendant’s motion in limine to the extent that the Court ruled inadmissible

Plaintiffs’ written responses to the Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY, JOHNSON & GIROUX, P.C.

s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

Michael R. Dezsi (P64530)

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 19390 W. Ten Mile Road

 Southfield, Michigan 48075

 (248) 355-5555

m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com

Dated: August 9, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 9, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all

counsel of record in this matter.

s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

Michael R. Dezsi (P64530)

Fieger, Fieger, Kenney, Johnson & Giroux, P.C.

19390 W. Ten Mile Road

Southfield, Michigan 48075

(248) 355-5555

m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 196 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3