ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
v
.
)
PCB 97-I79
(Enforcement- Air)
MIDWEST GRAIN PRODUCTS OF
)
ILLINOIS, INC ., an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERROGATORIES, OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING
INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT UNDUE EXPENSE AND HARASSMENT
COMES NOW Respondent, MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc ., ("MGP" or "Respondent")
f/k/a Midwest Grain Products of Illinois, Inc ., by and through its attorneys, and requests leave to
reply to Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Strike Complainant's
Interrogatories. In support of its motion, Respondent states as follows
:
I
.
Respondent's Motion to Strike Complainant's Interrogatories was filed on
November 1, 2005. Two weeks later, the Hearing Officer granted Complainant's motion for an
extension of time to respond to Respondent's motion to strike. The Hearing Officer set the new
response date as November 29, 2005. On November 28, 2005, Respondent received a letter from
Complainant addressing, for the first time, the discovery issues raised in Respondent's September
20, 2005 letter. On November 30, 2005, Complainant filed for a one day extension of the
response and simultaneously filed its response to Respondent's Motion to Strike Complainant's
Interrogatories
.
2
.
Beginning September 20, 2005, through October 14, 2005, Respondent attempted
to informally resolve the discovery issues with Complainant on four occasions . Complainant was
non-responsive to Respondent's repeated overtures to resolve the discovery issues . On October
25, 2005, Complainant provided a non-substantive response to Respondent's September 20 letter
.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
Respondent's letters to Complainant and Complainant's response were attached to Respondent's
Motion to Strike .
3
.
Complainant's November 28 letter and its November 30 response have provided
Respondent with its first look at Complainant's detailed explanation and reasoning regarding the
discovery issues raised by Respondent
.
4 .
Respondent submits that it should be allowed to respond to the substantive
portion of Complainant's response as well as correct what it believes are material misstatements
and/or mischaracterizations made by Complainant in its November 28 letter and November 30
response .
5 .
Respondent will suffer prejudice if it is not allowed to respond to the substantive
information presented in Complainant's letter and response, and the misstatements and/or
mischaracterizations contained therein
.
6 .
In the interest of efficiency and economy of time, Respondent files its reply
contemporaneously with this motion for leave
.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer grant its
motion for leave to reply to Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Strike
Complainant's Interrogatories
.
Respectfully submitted,
HUSCH & EPPENBERGER, LLC
Husch & Eppenberger, LLC
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
(314)480-1500
2
One of its attorneys
o,
6el k (
f o
P~
ilt
M. r,~~~sCv ~~
+~
.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that I did on the 9th day of December, 2005, send a true and
accurate copy of RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO
COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
INTERROGATORIES, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER LIMITING INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT UNDUE EXPENSE AND
HARASSMENT by first class mail, postage prepaid to :
Jane E. McBride
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second St .
Springfield, Ih 62706
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
Attorney
On
(re.t^Gl~-a~ Pcc4rkLM,l-Ltc,~l
CA'
r'
c~c.,-~
.
