RE,CE~E D
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
OF1-1C~
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUL 1 4 2003
)
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
v.
“)
PCB
NO. 00-104
)
(Enforcement)
THE HIGHLANDS, LLC; an Illinois limited
)
liability corporation, MURPHY FARMS, INC.,
)
a/k/a MURPHY FAMILY FARMS, a North
)
Caroline corporation, and BION
)
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Colorado corp.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Mr. Jeffery W. Tock
Mr. Ch~arlesM. Gering, Esq.
Harrington, Tock & Royse
McDermott, Will &
Emery
201 W.
Springfield Ave.
227 West Monroe Street
P.O. Box 1550
Chicago, IL 60606-5096
Champaign, IL 61824-1500
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date I mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board of the State of Illinois, COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT HIGHLAND’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF
STATUS CONFERENCE, AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF
DISCOVERY SCHEDULE, a copy of which is attached hereto and herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
BY:~—~JANE
5i—~
E. McBRIDE
~
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated: July 10, 2003
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did on July 10, 2003, send by First Class Mail, with postage thereon
fully prepaid, by depositing in a United States Post Office Box a true and correct copy of the
following instruments entitled NOTICE OF FILING and COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT HIGHLAND’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT,
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE, AND MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
To:
Mr. Jeffery W. Tock
Mr. Charles M. Gering, Esq.
Harrington, Tock & Royse
McDermott, Will & Emery
201 W. Springfield Ave.
227 West Monroe Street
P.O. Box 1550
Chicago, IL 60606-5096
Champaign, IL 61824-1500
and the original and five copies by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid of the
same foregoing instrument(s):
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
A copy was also sent by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid
To:
Mr. Brad Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois Center, Ste. 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, IL 60601
E. McBride
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted on recycled paper.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
,~
‘.~LERI~
~
S OFFICE
JUL14 2003
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
S )
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
POllUtion Control Board
v.
)
PCB No. 00-104
)
(Enforcement)
THE HIGHLANDS, LLC, an Illinois limited
)
liability corporation, and MURPHY
)
FARMS, INC., (a division of MURPHY-
)
BROWN, LLC, a North Carolina limited
)
liability corporation, and SMITHFIELD
)
FOODS, INC., a Virginia corporation).
)
)
Respondents.
)
COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH
TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT HIGHLAND’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS
CONFERENCE, AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF
DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
NOW COMES, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel.
Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and moves the Hearing Officer for an
extension of time within which to respond to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Count I of the Amended Complaint, for continuance of the status conference set for this matter,
and for an extension of time within which to submit a proposed discovery schedule, and, in
support thereof, states as follows:
1.
Complainant received Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I
of the Amended Complaint on June 17, 2003.
2.
On July 2, 2003, the Hearing Officer granted Complainant’s Motion for Extension
of Time Within Which to Respond to Respondent Highland’s Motion for Summary Judgement
on Count I of the Amended Complaint, thereby setting the date Complainant’s Response is due
to on or before July 11, 2003.
3.
Although counsel for the Complainant has been working diligently in the
preparation of a response to the motion, Complainant requires additional time to prepare its
response.
S
4.
On July 10, 2003, counsel for Complainant discussed her request for additional
time with counsel for Respondent Highlands. Mr. Jeffrey W. Tock, counsel for The Highlands,
indicated he had no objection to an additional two-week extension of time.
5.
Pursuant to Complainant counsel’s notes, the Hearing Officer had directed the
parties to discuss and submit a discovery schedule prior to the July 15, 2003 status conference.
The Complainant requests that this requirement be postponed until at least such time as the
Board has issued an order regarding the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The
pending discovery requests that have been served to date. are extensive. Counsels’
estimations of time needed to complete discovery, thus the substance of the discovery
schedule, will be impacted by the Board’s decision regarding the pending motion. Counsel for
Respondent Highlands concurs with the Complainant’s request that submission of a proposed
discovery schedule be postponed at this time.
6.
Counsel for Complainant also seeks continuance of the status conference
scheduled for this matter on July 15, 2003 at 2:30 P.M., for two weeks, to be reset on July 29,
2003, or as soon thereafter as the Hearing Officer is available for said status conference.
Counsel for Complainant and counsel for Respondent Murphy have been pursuing settlement
discussion. Respondent Murphy has only just recently indicated it is prepared to extend a
counter offer. If the status conference were to be continued for two weeks, counsel for the
Complainant believes the parties would be in a much better position to report upon the status of
settlement discussions and the expected success of said discussions. Counsel for Respondent
Highlands has indicated he has no objection to a two-week continuance of the status
conference. Counsel for Respondent Murphy was not available to discuss the requests
2
contained within this motidn on July 10, 2003, prior to the filing of this motion.
WHEREFORE, Complainant respecifully requests that the time within which it is
required to respond to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the
Amended Complaint be extended an additional two weeks, through Friday July 25, 2003; that
the status conference set for this matter on July 15, 2003 be continued for two weeks; and that
the parties be allowed to postpone submission of a proposed discovery schedule until such time
as the Board has ruled upon Respondent’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rek JAMES E. RYAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Division
BY:
~
~-
7
JANE E. MCBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9031
3