BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
FEB - 9 2OC~
STATE OF ~LU1’1OIS
Pollution Control Board
MATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Complainant,
F.T.C. AMERICA CORPORATION,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 2004-075
)
(Enforcement X)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Please be advised that on the
6th
day ofFebruary, 2004 Complainant Mate Technologies,
Inc. submitted for filing with the Illinois Pollution Control Board the document titled,
“Complainant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Respondent’s Discovery And to Establish
Discovery Schedule,” a copy of which is attached hereto.
Dated: February 6, 2004
Carey S. Rosemarin (Atty. No. 6181911)
Law Offices ofCarey S. Rosemarin, P.C.
500 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 510
Northbrook, IL 60062
847-897-8000
312-896-5786 (fax)
By:
V.
MATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FEB
-
9 2OO~
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
MATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
)
PCB No. 2004-075
)
(Enforcement X)
F,I.C. AMERICA CORPORATION,
)
)
Respondent.
)
COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY
AND TO ESTABLISH DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
NOW COMES Complainant Mate Technologies, Inc. (“Mate”), by and through its
attorney, the Law Offices ofCarey S. Rosemarin, P.C. and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
§~101.522,101.610 and 101.616, moves for an extension oftime to respond to the discovery
served by Respondent FIC America Corporation (“FIC”) until such time as the Parties can
establish a discovery schedule. This Motion is directed to Hearing Officer Halloran. In support
ofthis Motion Complainant states as follows:
1.
On January
5,
2004, FIC filed its “Motion ofRespondent to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Strike,” and on January 23, 2004 Mate filed its timely opposition to FTC’s motion.
2.
In its order ofJanuary 22, 2004 (“Order”), the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”)
accepted Mate’s complaint for hearing, but stated, “FIC has filed no motion.” The Order also
required FTC to answer Mate’s complaint. For reasons that are unknown, the Board may not
have been aware ofFTC’s motion at the time it issued the Order.
3.
On February
5,
2004, Hearing Officer Halloran proposed that a conference be conducted
1
at 11:00 a.m. on February 9, 2004, to determine what had transpired before the Board and
possibly establish an initial litigation schedule.
4.
However, on or about January 9, 2004 (a few days after filing its motion to dismiss), FIC
served the following documents on Mate: i) “Respondent’s First Set ofInterrogatories to
Complainant;” and ii) “Respondent’s First Request upon Complainant for Production of
Documents” (collectively, the “Discovery”).
5.
The time to respond to Respondent’s Discovery should be extended until such time as the
Hearing Officer and the Parties can establish a reasonable discovery schedule. The Parties also
need to determine why the Board issued its Order.
6.
In any event, the relevant issues need to be defined before the Parties rush into discovery.
For that reason, at the very least, discovery should be postponed until FTC has answered the
complaint. Because the relevant issues have not been identified, the Discovery is not well
thought out. It is grossly overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.’ Clearly, responding to such requests would not advance the litigation at all, and
would only result in causing Mate to incur needless expense.
7.
The Parties may be entering settlement negotiations in the immediate future. Should that
process take hold, the Parties will define the relevant issues and focus on the important
information that needs to be exchanged. That will be a more efficient and productive process
1
For example, Interrogatory #9 reads, “Identify all photographs, films, videos, maps,
plans, surveys, diagrams and figures ofthe Property, including: A. The date(s) it was created; B.
Its subject matter; and C. The person(s) who created it,” And Document Request #4 asks Mate to
produce “Each material safety data sheet (“MSDS”) and all similar Documents forproducts,
substances or materials ever at the Property and all OSHA hazard communication standard
documents pertaining to the Property.”
2
than that reflected in the Discovery, and should be given a reasonable chance to work.
8.
Mate proposes that the issue ofthe discovery schedule be discussed during the conference
call ofFebruary 9, 2004. (Tn making this proposal, Mate does not intend to foreclose FIC’s
rights to respond to this Motion in accordance with the Board’s procedural rules.)
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Officer should: 1) Extend the time for Mate
to respond to the Discovery; and 2) Schedule a conference call with the Parties, after FTC files its
answer, to determine a discovery schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
MATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
By:_________
$2 ey S. Rosemarin
Carey S. Rosemarin (Atty. No. 6181911)
Law Offices ofCarey S. Rosemarin, P.C.
500 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 510
Northbrook, IL 60062
847-897-8000
312-896-5786 (fax)
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Carey S. Rosemarin, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused a copy ofthe foregoing
“Notice of Filing” and “Complainant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Respondent’s
Discovery And to Establish Discovery Schedule” to be served upon:
Jeremy A. Gibson, Esq.
Mitchell S. Chaban, Esq.
Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell, Ltd.
One E. Wacker Dr.
Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601-2002
by regular U.S. Mail, on February 6, 2004.
~
arey ~fKosemar1n
La~~fficesofCarey S. Rosemarin, P.C.
Skokie Boulevard, Suite 510
Northbrook, IL 60062
847-897-8000
312-896-5786 (Fax)