ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 5, 1994
    JAY AGUILAR,
    Complainant,
    PCB 94—75
    v.
    )
    (Enforcement)
    )
    THE CITY OF WOOD DALE,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E. Dunham):
    This matter comes before the Board on a “Motion for
    Continuance” filed on April 14, 1994, by Jay Aguilar. Also
    before the Board is a “Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash
    Subpoena Duces Tecum” filed on April 27, 1994, by the City of
    Wood Dale (Wood Dale).
    The complaint in this matter was filed on February 25, 1994.
    On March 17, 1994, the Board denied respondent’s motion to
    dismiss the complaint for failure to allege specific facts and
    allowed the complainant until April 18, 1994, to file an amended
    complaint providing additional information concerning the alleged
    violations. Mr. Aguilar’s “Motion for Continuance” requests an
    additional 45 days in which to file an amended complaint.
    Wood Dale seeks dismissal of this matter with prejudice on
    the grounds that the complainant has failed to file the amended
    complaint as ordered by the Board. The respondent further states
    that the motion for continuance does not provide sufficient
    grounds for granting an extension as the motion contains only
    general and conclusory allegations.
    Complainant has also served the City of Wood Dale with a
    subpoena duces tecum requesting production of all “records
    relating to the discharges to the Wood Dale storm sewer system
    and all records relating to the Third Avenue sewer extension.”
    Wood Dale requests the Board to quash the subpoena because there
    is no case currently pending before the Board. Wood Dale also
    contends that the subpoena fails to meet the requirements of a
    valid subpoena. Wood Dale argues that there is no complaint
    pending before the Board and therefore, it cannot be determined
    if the requested material is relevant. Further, Wood Dale
    contends that the subpoena is overbroad in scope and oppressive
    requiring the production of a massive volume of documents. Wood
    Dale also notes that the subpoena fails to state a date, time or
    location for the production of documents.
    The Board grants Wood Dale’s motion to quash the subpoena.
    The Board notes that the complaint as filed has not been accepted
    by the Board. While the Board recognizes that additional
    2
    information may be needed to provide specifics to amend the
    complaint, the use of discovery procedures where the complaint
    has not been accepted by the Board is inappropriate. The Board
    also finds that the subpoena is overbroad as it does not limit
    the timeframe of the requested records and the records to be
    produced are insufficiently specified. In addition, the Board
    believes that the information requested should be available to
    complainant through other means, especially through the Freedom
    of Information Act.
    Mr. Aguilar has sought an extension of time in which to file
    an amended complaint. In the motion requesting an extension of
    time, Mr. Aguilar states that “the nature of the complaint is so
    complex” that he is unable to proceed at this time. He also
    states that he has issued subpoenas to “the parties” for the
    production of documents. Attached to the motion are subpoenas to
    the Clerk of the City of Wood Dale and the Wood Dale Fire
    Protection District.’
    The Board denies Mr. Aguilar’s request for an extension of
    time. From the motion, it appears that Mr. Aguilar is requesting
    additional time based on the issuance of the subpoenas. It
    appears that he is relying on obtaining additional information
    from the documents obtained through the subpoenas to amend the
    complaint. As the Board has quashed the subpoenas, the Board
    finds no reason to extend the time allowed for the filing of an
    amended complaint.
    The Board finds that dismissal of this matter without
    prejudice is appropriate because Mr. Aguilar did not file the
    amended complaint by the date ordered by the Board or present
    adequate grounds for an extension of the filing date. The Board
    finds that this matter does not present an adequate justification
    for dismissal with prejudice. The Board notes that it is
    dismissing this matter without prejudice and therefore, Mr.
    Aguilar is not prohibited from filing a new complaint in this
    matter. The Board cannot at this point determine if the
    additional time requested is adequate to obtain the needed
    information to amend the complaint or if Mr. Aguilar still
    intends to pursue this matter. The Board finds it preferable to
    dismiss this matter at this time and allow Mr. Aguilar the option
    of filing a new complaint if the needed information can be
    obtained, than to hold this matter open, placing time
    requirements on the filing of an amended complaint.
    The two subpoenas are identical in form and substance.
    Although there is no motion before the Board concerning the
    subpoena for the Wood Dale Fire Protection District, the Board
    also quashes that subpoena for the reasons stated above.
    3
    Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice and
    the docket in this matter is closed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, (415 ILCS
    5/41 (1992)), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
    within 35 days of the date of service of this order. The Rules
    of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    (See also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motion for Reconsideration.)
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    _____________day of
    ,
    1994, by a vote of
    ~-O.
    L
    Dorothy N. nfl, Clerk
    Illinois o lution Control Board

    Back to top