ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 27,
1989
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.
)
P08 87—183
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF TUE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes
before the Board
on the Joint Motion To
Extend Briefing Schedule,
filed with the Board on April
25,
1989.
The parties recite
in
the motion that,
pursuant
to the
Board’s Order
of April
6,
1989,
a hearing was held
in this
matter.
Both parties have presented
their
cases
and
rested.
issue
is the appropriate briefing schedule.
The parties
at hearing requested
the Hearing Officer
to set
a briefing schedule under which Petitioner would be allowed
three
weeks from the anticipated date of receipt of written hearing
transcripts
in which
to file
its opening brief,
the Respondent
would have three weeks
for
its response,
and the Petitioner would
have one week
to reply.
According
to the Joint Motion,
the
Hearing Officer agreed this schedule would normally be considered
reasonable but stated
that, based
on his reading of
the Board’s
April
6 Order,
he did not have discretion
to allow such
a
schedule.
Instead, the Hearing Officer
set
a very short briefing
schedule,
and ordered
simultaneous briefs on or before May 9,
1989, approximately seven working days after
the transcript
is
expected.
The parties request
the Board
to set
a briefing schedule
along
the lines originally requested, with Petitioner’s opening
brief due by May
19,
1989,
the Respondent’s
response due by June
9,
1989,
and Petitioner’s reply due by June 16,
1989.
The
parties state
that this schedule would comply with the
letter and
the spirit of
the Board’s April
6,
1989 Order,
and contend that
the Hearing Officer a~doptedtoo narrow
a reading
of that Order.
The Hearing Officer correcLly interpreted
the Board’s Order
of April
6,
1989
as favoring the prompt
resolution of this
case.
Noting
a history of unacceptable delay
in this proceeding,
the Board
in that Order demanded
that hearings be concluded
as
98—217
—2—
soon as possible and authorized the Hearing Officer
“to take all
necessary steps
to ensure that the record
in this matter
is
completed promptly”
(p.
3).
Clearly,
a briefing schedule that
might be reasonable
in the “normal” case may not be appropriate
in a proceeding such as that before the Board
in this docket.
However,
the Board will not require simultaneous briefs.
ri
abbreviated
responsive briefing schedule from that requested will
promote
a prompt completion of the
record while avoiding the
“problems and confusions inherent
in a simultaneous briefing
situation” alluded
to by the movants
(Jt. Mt.
at
3).
The rather
more draconian measure of
requiring simultaneous briefing remains
a tool appropriate
in some cases,
as where
a specific deadline
for completion of
the record
or
for final action
is set by Board
Order or
by statute.
In keeping with the goals espoused by the Board’s April
6,
1989,
Order,
the Board hereby establishes
the following briefing
schedule:
a.
Petitioner’s post—hearing
brief
May 12,
1989
h.
Respondent’s responsive brief
May 26,
1989
c.
Petitioner’s reply brief
June
5,
1989
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
N. Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certi~~that the above Order was adopted on
the
~7tZday
of
C.?-~
~
,
1989, by a vote of
7—_0_—.
~iL~L1
~
Dorothy M.
G(u~in, Clerk
Illinois Pol-lution Control Board
98—218