ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 15, 2007
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
MARLA LEWIS GATES, MARK GATES and
MARK KINGSLEY LEWIS,
)
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AC 06-50
(IEPA No. 98-06-AC)
(Administrative Citation)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
This matter is before the Board on a January 23, 2007 motion to produce and time to
respond filed by Mark Gates (Gates). In this order the Board will provide background on the
proceeding and then address the motion.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2006, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) timely filed an
administrative citation against Marla Lewis Gates, Gates, and Mark Kingsley Lewis
(respondents) (415 ILCS 5/31.1(c) (2004)); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 108.202(c). On July 25, 2006,
respondent Gates filed a petition to review the administrative citation.
On August 4, 2006, the Board issued an order directing respondent Gates to amend his
petition to contest the administrative citation or face dismissal of his appeal, and directing the
Agency to file sufficient proof of service as to Marla Lewis Gates and Mark Kingsley Lewis.
See
IEPA v. Gates, AC 06-50, slip op. at 2 (Aug. 4, 2006). The parties were both given until
September 5, 2006, to correct their respective filing deficiencies.
Id
.
On October 19, 2006, the Board issued an order dismissing Gates’ petition to contest the
administrative citation, as well as the administrative citations against Marla Lewis Gates and
Mark Kingsley Lewis, finding that neither Gates nor the Agency has submitted any pleadings to
correct the deficiencies. In that order, the Board also directed Gates to pay a civil penalty of
$3,000 no later than November 20, 2006. On December 21, 2006, the Board granted a motion
for reconsideration filed by Gates. In that order, the Board found that Gates must amend his
original petition for review as directed on or before January 22, 2007.
On January 23, 2007, the Board received a pleading from Gates entitled “motion to
produce and time to respond.” No response to the motion has been received.
2
MOTION TO PRODUCE AND FOR TIME TO RESPOND
As stated, on January 23, 2007, Gates filed a hand-written motion to produce and for time
to respond. In that motion, Gates requests that the Board have all records, reports, pictures and
any other pertinent documents produced to him, and then give ample time for a response to be
filed. Mot. at 1. Gates asserts that he is in need of the violations against him, and the rules and
regulations regarding the cause of action in order to adequately prepare a defense.
Id
.
DISCUSSION
As previously noted, the Agency has not responded to the motion. If a party files no
response to a motion within 14 days, the party will be deemed to have waived objection to the
granting of the motion.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d).
The Board notes that Gates did not amend the petition by January 22, 2007, as directed
by the Board in its December 21, 2006 order. However, pursuant to the mailbox rule, Gates’
motion was filed prior to the deadline set forth in that order.
See
35 Ill. Code 101.300(c). The
Board grants Gates’ motion in part. First, the motion is ill founded in that the Board has no duty
to provide records, reports, pictures, and other pertinent documents. Gates has not alleged that
the citation was not properly served, or that he is not in actual receipt of the citation. Thus, the
Board denies that portion of the motion requesting the Board to produce.
In the Board’s December 21, 2006 order, the Board cautioned Gates that if he chooses to
represent himself in this matter, he bears the responsibility for that decision, and that while the
Agency may be inclined to offer assistance in regards to copies of violations and regulations, it is
by no means incumbent on the Agency to assist Gates in the preparation of his case.
See
IEPA v.
Gates, AC 06-50, slip op. at 3 (Dec. 21, 2006). That same principle applies in regard to the
instant motion directed toward the Board. It is incumbent upon Gates to prepare his own
defense. That said, the Board advises Gates that copies of the citation, the Act and the
environmental regulations that Gates is alleged to have violated can be found online on the
Board’s website at
www.ipcb.state.il.us. Further, should Gates need assistance in accessing
documents from the Board’s website, he would be advised to contact Board Hearing Officer
Carol Webb.
Second, the Board grants Gates’ request for additional time to amend his petition. Gates
is hereby given until April 13, 2007, to amend his petition to contest the administrative citation
as directed in the August 4, 2006 order. Specifically, that order found that Gates’ petition for
review is deficient because it does not state a basis for the appeal, and therefore fails to meet the
content requirements found at Section 108.206 of the Board regulations.
See
IEPA v. Gates, AC
06-50, slip op. at 2 (Aug. 4, 2006), 35 Ill. Adm. Code 108.206.
CONCLUSION
The Board grants Gates’ motion in part. The Board will not produce the documents
requested, but Gates is given until April 13, 2007, to amend his original petition as directed in
this and previous orders.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on March 15, 2007, by a vote of 4-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
