the Court will allow defendants an opportunity to file objections following plaintiffs submission of a bill of costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Court will then consider both parties’ respective filings to determine the appropriate amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred by plaintiff in enforcing the termination. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff/counter-defendant Dunkin’ Donuts Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the franchise agreement between the parties dated July 5,1993 is terminated; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants/counter-plaintiffs Trpko Taseski, Bosko Taseski, and TRBO Corporation sha Corp., 843 F.Supp. 377, 382-83 (N.D.Ill.1993), aff'd, 58 F.3d 1181 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 4 . As the Supreme Court stated, "[t]he
holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal holding that district court need not consider evidence claimant presented to show that property subject to forfeiture proceedings was not acquired with proceeds of claimants husbands drug trafficking activity where claimant refused on fifth amendment grounds to answer governments deposition questions concerning same topics holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that district court had ample authority to strike claimants affidavit offered in opposition to governments motion for summary judgment in forfeiture action after claimant invoked fifth amendment and refused to answer governments deposition questions holding that where notice was deficient in administrative forfeiture proceedings proper remedy was to grant claimant right to a hearing