ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    August
    21,
    1980
    THE CELOTEX CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—177
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    I. Goodman):
    Petitioner on July
    2,
    1980 filed this motion to allow appeal
    of the hearing officer’s Orders of November
    20,
    1979 and December
    10,
    1979.
    On July 10,
    1980 the Board allowed the appeal.
    The
    orders are hereby affirmed.
    Petitioner specifically seeks to overturn two of the hearing
    officer’s discovery—related Orders.
    The first, dated November
    20,
    1979,
    regulated the course of discovery and ordered that
    certain discovery and responses thereto conclude by given dates.
    Such Order was issued in response to
    a motion by Respondent to
    close discovery and to set a hearing date.
    The Board finds that
    whatever material prejudice to Petitioner which could have arisen
    from the Order closing discovery and setting
    a hearing date was
    waived knowingly and voluntarily by Petitioner when six days later
    (November 26,
    1979)
    it complied with that very Order without appeal-
    ing same to the Board pursuant to Procedural Rule 308(f).
    On November 26,
    1979 Petitioner also filed a motion to
    compel
    certain Agency witnesses to answer questions posed at
    depositions and to compel Agency witness Zamco to appear at and
    submit to a deposition.
    The hearing officer on December 10,
    1979 denied this motion, and Petitioner now appeals his rulings
    pursuant to Procedural Rule 308(f).
    All rulings are affirmed.
    Applicable discovery—related standards have not changed since
    the Board’s Order of July
    7,
    1979 affirming the hearing officer’s
    original May 17,
    1979 rulings.
    Specifically:
    1.
    The ruling denying Petitioner’s motion “to compel Agency
    witnesses King, Telford and Miller
    to answer
    the
    deposition
    questions identified in Appendix
    I hereto,
    and other related
    questions,” and “to compel Agency witness Zamco
    to submit to the
    taking of his deposition”
    is affirmed.
    (Hearing Officer Order of
    December 10,
    1979, Paragraph 1.)
    These depositions were taken on
    April 23,
    1979.
    Although Petitioner filed
    a motion on April 26,
    1979 to compel answers
    to questions posed at that deposition,
    this motion was denied by the hearing officer on May
    17,
    1979,
    which Order was on July
    7,
    1979 affirmed by the Board.

    Back to top