UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

GEORGE S. MAY )

INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case Number 04-C-6018 

 -vs- ) 

 ) Judge Norgle 

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, ) 

RIP-OFF REPORT.COM ) 

BADBUSINESSBUREAU.COM, ) 

ED MAGEDSON, VARIOUS ) 

JOHN DOES, JANE DOES AND ) 

ABC COMPANIES, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

GEORGE S. MAY’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

TO THE KUSHNIR DECLARATION SUPPORTING CONTEMPT REMEDY

George S. May submitted the Declaration of Israel Kushnir and attached exhibits 

(“Declaration”) to support the remedy that this Court should grant as a result of its finding that 

Defendants are in contempt of the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). In response, 

Defendants have filed “Evidentiary Objections” to this Declaration. Without citing to any 

authority other than Federal Rule of Evidence 802 as to why the Declaration should be excluded, 

Defendants make the blanket assertion that the Declaration should be excluded as hearsay. 

 Defendants’ assertion, however, is contradicted not only by Local Rule 37.1 and case law 

which clearly supports the use of declarations (including hearsay in the declarations) to establish 

damages for contempt, but also Defendants’ Motion and Amended Motion for Reconsideration 

of the Contempt Order, in which Defendants expressly asked the Court not to hold an evidentiary 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 1 of 7

George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Doc. 103

Dockets.Justia.com
2 

hearing.1 When Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections are read in conjunction with Defendants’ 

Motion and Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Defendants’ Response to the contempt 

sanction, it is clear that Defendants’ latest objections represent another attempt to avoid being 

liable for failing to comply with the TRO. For these reasons, Defendants’ Evidentiary 

Objections should be overruled. 

First, the Declaration and attached exhibits comply with Local Rule 37.1 which requires

Plaintiff to set forth its damages pursuant to the contempt proceedings in an affidavit. Local 

Rule 37.1 and applicable case law clearly support the use of the Declaration in contempt 

proceedings even if they include hearsay statements. Local Rule 37.1 states: 

A proceeding to adjudicate a person in civil contempt of court, including a case 

provided for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(D), shall be commenced by the service of a 

notice of motion or order to show cause. The affidavit upon which such notice of 

motion or order to show cause is based shall set out with particularity the 

misconduct complained of, the claim, if any, for damages occasioned thereby, and 

such evidence as to the amount of damages as may be available to the moving 

party. A reasonable counsel fee, necessitated by the contempt proceeding, may be 

included as an item of damage. 

Assuming, arguendo, that the statements included in the Declaration could be considered 

hearsay, courts have expressly allowed hearsay declarations as admissible in support of contempt 

motions. As one court stated: 

The objective of the pleadings in a proceeding for civil contempt is to permit 

plaintiffs to present their case, give defendants notice and an opportunity to be 

heard and make sure that any special procedural protections applicable to 

contempt proceedings are observed...Local Civil Rule [37.1] provides that the 

affidavit ‘shall set out with particularity the misconduct complained of, the claim, 

if any, for damages occasioned thereby, and such evidence as to the amount of 

damages as may be available to the moving party.’ The rule contains no 

requirement that evidence attested to in the affidavit be admissible at trial.

 

1

 See Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration at page 10, filed on October 17, 2005 and 

Defendants’ Amended Motion for Reconsideration at pages 10-11, filed on October 25, 2005. 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 2 of 7
3 

TMT North America, Inc. v. The Magic Touch GmbH, 57 F.Supp. 2d, 586, 592n.11 (N.D. Ill. 

1999)(emphasis added). 

 Furthermore, this rule makes complete sense since courts within this Circuit have clearly 

stated that “hearsay can be considered in entering a preliminary injunction” and “[w]hen ruling 

on plaintiffs preliminary injunction motions, we may consider otherwise inadmissible evidence.” 

SEC v. Cherif, 933 F.2d 403, 412n.8 (N.D. Ill. 1991); IDS Life Insurance Co. v. SunAmerica, 

Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1258, 1284 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Since the basis for the contempt proceeding was 

the violation of the injunctive relief granted by the TRO, it clearly follows that the Declaration is 

properly considered. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Declaration or exhibits are 

somehow untrustworthy or unreliable. Israel Kushnir is the President of George S. May and has 

received these documents in the course of George S. May’s regularly conducted business, and is 

clearly in a position to know that George S. May in being harmed by Defendants’ conduct. 

Second, when read in conjunction with Defendants’ Amended Motion for 

Reconsideration of the Contempt Order and Defendants’ Response to contempt sanctions, it is 

clear that these latest Evidentiary Objections are simply another attempt to avoid being liable for 

Defendants’ failure to comply with the TRO. All of Defendants’ arguments with respect to this 

Court’s contempt order and sanctions represent Defendants’ attempt to either: (1) improperly 

rehash arguments that were raised and rejected by this Court; or (2) or raise arguments that 

should have been made during briefing on the motion for contempt but are now waived by 

Defendants. Specifically—and perhaps most importantly—Defendants expressly took the 

position in their Motion and Amended Motion for Reconsideration on the Contempt Order that 

an evidentiary hearing should not be held. Since Defendants expressly asked this Court not to 

hold an evidentiary hearing they have waived any right to that hearing now. Plaintiff should be 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 3 of 7
4 

entitled to present the Declaration of Israel Kushnir and this Court should rely upon that 

Declaration in fashioning an appropriate remedy for Defendants’ contempt. To do otherwise 

would unfairly prejudice Plaintiff. 

To highlight the point that this Court should overrule Defendants’ Evidentiary 

Objections, a brief chronology of events related to the contempt and sanction is appropriate. 

When Plaintiff filed its motion for an order finding Defendants in contempt for violating the 

Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants made no request for a hearing or otherwise filed an 

evidentiary objection to the Third Declaration of Charles Black submitted in support of the 

contempt motion; rather, a briefing schedule was set on Plaintiff’s motion. When Defendants 

filed their Response to the motion for contempt, they made no request for a hearing or otherwise 

filed an evidentiary objection to the Black declaration. When Defendants were found in 

contempt of this Court’s order, Defendants waited over a month to file their motion for 

reconsideration of the contempt order, and not only did Defendants not request a hearing at that 

time, they expressly stated: 

Defendants further submit that discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding the 

truth or falsity issue should not be held at this point in time until after the 

jurisdictional issues raised by Defendants are considered and decided.2

 

 In addition to expressly requesting that no hearing be held, Defendants also attached 

affidavits of Ed Magedson to their motion and amended motion for reconsideration.3

Furthermore, consistent with their position that this Court not hold an evidentiary 

hearing, when this Court ordered Mr. Magedson to appear and testify as to the contempt sanction 

 

2

 See Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration at page 10, filed on October 17, 2005 and 

Defendants’ Amended Motion for Reconsideration at pages 10-11, filed on October 25, 2005. 

3

 See Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration at Exhibit A, filed on October 17, 2005 and 

Defendants’ Amended Motion for Reconsideration at Exhibit A, filed on October 25, 2005. 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 4 of 7
5 

on November 2, 2005, Defendants objected to having Mr. Magedson appear, attached an 

affidavit in support of their motion, and asked this Court to reconsider requiring Mr. Magedson 

to appear, which this Court granted. 

In light of Defendants’ own request that this Court not hold a hearing on the contempt, it 

is completely disingenuous for Defendants to object to the Declaration of Israel Kushnir and to 

now file a “jury demand.”4 Defendants passed on multiple opportunities to contest the contempt 

and the sanction, asked this Court not to hold a hearing, and have themselves relied on affidavits 

in support of their position. By their own conduct, Defendants have completely waived the right 

to a hearing on contempt or sanctions, and this Court should properly rely on the Declaration of 

Israel Kushnir in fashioning an appropriate remedy for Defendants’ contempt. To grant 

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections in light of their request not to hold an “evidentiary hearing” 

would unfairly prejudice Plaintiff. 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections should be overruled. 

 

4

 Plaintiff, in its Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Contempt Sanction, argues that 

Defendants are not entitled to a jury, in any event. 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 5 of 7
6 

DATED: November 21, 2005 Respectfully submitted, 

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL COMPANY

By: s/Rachel M. Kindstrand 

One of Its Attorneys 

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Bart A. Lazar, Esq. 

Ronald L. Lipinski, Esq. 

Rachel M. Kindstrand, Esq. 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

55 East Monroe, Suite 4200 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 346-8000 

Facsimile: (312) 269-8869 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 6 of 7
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on November 21, 2005, I electronically filed GEORGE S. MAY’S 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE KUSHNIR 

DECLARATION SUPPORTING CONTEMPT REMEDY with the Clerk of Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filings to the following: 

James K. Borcia 

Jborcia@tsmp.com 

Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess 

233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60606-6308 

Lead Attorney 

Attorney to be noticed 

 

 And I further certify that on November 21, 2005, I sent an electronic copy of GEORGE 

S. MAY’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE 

KUSHNIR DECLARATION SUPPORTING CONTEMPT REMEDY to the following: 

Maria Crimi Speth 

mcs@jaburgwilk.com 

Fascimile: (602) 248-0552 

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 

3200 North Central Avenue 

Suite 2000 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

 s/ Rachel M. Kindstrand____

 Rachel M. Kindstrand 

 

CH1 10984754.2 

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 103 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 7 of 7