ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    10, 1980
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL1 PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—5
    CROSSROADS U.S.A.,
    INC.,
    )
    an Iowa corporation,
    BROWNE BARR,
    CHARLES JORDAN, DALLAS CRANDALL and
    LARRY W. MCCASLAND,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    Respondent’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
    of its Order
    adopted December 13,
    1979,
    is hereby denied.
    Respondent alleges that the Board was “unrealistic”
    in its
    discovery schedule ordered pursuant to a previous motion by
    Respondent.
    These “unrealisms” include the fact that the date
    for setting deposition dates had passed before the Respondent
    received the Order
    hut was also
    25 days after it was advised of
    possible witnesses.
    The Board feels that
    25 days
    is sufficient
    time for Respondent to decide who, if anyone,
    it wishes to depose.
    The
    rest of the alleged
    “unrealisms” go to the fact that
    the Board’s discovery schedule was not the week—to—week, very
    complex system devised and requested by Respondent, but was
    instead
    a simple series of dates by which the discovery process
    was
    to occur.
    Respondent was made aware of these potential
    witnesses on November 16,
    1979.
    The Board’s schedule allowed
    until January
    18, 1980 for
    discovery.
    This amounts to 63
    days,
    or nine weeks,
    for discovery in addition to that completed on
    August
    16,
    1979.
    The case was filed January
    10,
    1979.
    In
    addition, the Board ordered the hearing set four weeks after
    the close of discovery in order to allow for slippage in the
    schedule,
    if it occurred.
    Indeed, the Board allowed more time
    than Respondent asked for,
    although not in exactly the sequence
    requested.
    37—111
    —2—
    The Board has maintained a clear record of allowing sufficient
    time
    for discovery in the cases before
    it.
    However,
    a party has
    the right to expect the hearing process to go on as expeditiously
    as possible,
    even
    if the party is the State of Illinois.
    No one
    may grant himself a stay of discovery by filing a motion which
    merely objects to a Board Order.
    Reasonable people would continue
    the process to the best of their abilities while the motion as to
    time to be allowed was processed.
    Nine weeks is more than suffi-
    cient time
    for the discovery involved here.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Werner Dissents.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Contro~Board, her by certify the above Order was adopted on
    the_~g~day
    of
    ,
    1980 by a vote of
    Christan L. Moff
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollutio
    ntrol Board
    37—112

    Back to top