IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION HARRELDN. KIRKPATRICK II, ) a ) and ) ) KIRKPATRICK CAPITAL ) PARTNERS FUND, LP., ) 2 ) ‘Case No. 17CH13381 “3 ) Judge David B, Atkins ; Plaintifis, ) ca ) ; 5 v. } ” BRUCE RAUNER, ) ) Defendant. ) REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS PLAINTIFES’ COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Harreld N. Kirkpatrick, IM and Kirkpatrick Capital Partners Fund 1, LP, Plaintiffs”) respectfully request that the Court entertain oral arguments on Defendant Bruce Rauner’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Oral arguments will, among other things, afford Plaintiffs the necessary opportunity to respond to Mr. Rauner’s newly introduced evidentiary material cited for the first time in his reply brief. In his reply brief, Mr. Rauner referenced and attached an order from the concurrently pending AAA arbitration panel. Plaintiffs respectfully request the opportunity to respond to this, this material in oral argument. In the context of a 2-619 motion, Illinois law is clear that the plaintiff is allowed the opportunity to respond to a defendant’s external evidentiary material in order to show that the affirmative defense asserted either is unfounded as a matter of law or requires the resolution of an essential element of material fact before it is proven. Epstein v, Chicago Bd. of Bduc., 178 Ill. 24 370, 383 (Ill. 1997) (“Once a defendant satisfies this initial burden of going forward on the section 2-619(a)(9) motion to dismiss, the burden then shifts tothe plaintiff, who must establish that the affirmative defense asserted either is unfounded or requires the resolution of an essential element of material fact before it is proven.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Rather than expending the parties” and the Court’s resources seeking to strike Mr. Rauner’s reply brief or secking a sur-reply brief, Plaintiffs simply ask for oral argument on this matter. A hearing on this motion will allow both parties the immediate opportunity to adequately respond to either support or oppose Mr. Rauner’s newly introduced evidentiary material. We conferred with Counsel for Plaintiffs prior to filing this motion and while they elected not to join in or consent to Defendants’ request for oral argument, they indicated they are available for such an argument on January 10, which is a date that is also convenient for Defendants. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’ respectfully request that the Court set this matter for oral argument on Wednesday, January 10, 2018.Date: November 29, 2017 Respectfully submitted, HARRELDN. KIRKPATRICK If] and KIRKPATRICK. CAPITAL PARTNERS FUND |, LP. By: One Pthci attomeys 7 Dan K. Webb Larry Desideri William C. O°Neil Ryan M, Dunigan WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Ilinois 60601 ‘Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 dwebb@winston.com Idésideri@winston.com ‘woneil@winston.com rdunigan@winston.com Attomey No. 90875CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, The undersigned certifies that on this 29th day of November, 2017, a true and correct copy of the REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL, ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT was served vis electronic mail on the following individuals: Philip S. Beck Reid M. Botton BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP 54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Tel: (312) 494-4400 Fax: (312) 494-4440 philip-beck@bartlit-beck.com reid.bolton@battlit-beck.com Joseph C. Smith, Ir BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP 1801 Wewatta Street Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202 ‘Tel: (303) 592-3100 Fax: (303) 592-3140 Joseph.smith@bartlit-beck.com Rya(M. Dunigan WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 rdunigan@winston.com Attorney No. 90875