ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 25,
    1993
    LAKE
    COUNTY FOREST
    )
    PRESERVE DISTRICT,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—80
    (Enforcement)
    NEIL OSTRO,
    JANET OSTRO,
    )
    and BIG FOOT ENTERPRISES,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on complainant Lake County
    Forest Preserve’s
    (Forest Preserve) February 16,
    1993 motion to
    file first amended complaint.
    Forest Preserve states that the
    parties have agreed that Forest Preserve would file an amended
    complaint withdrawing certain trespass allegations, that Forest
    Preserve has also withdrawn two of the six violations alleged
    in
    the original complaint in order to conform with the evidence, and
    that the first amended complaint contains no new allegations.
    The motion to file the first amended complaint is granted.
    In addition, there are three other motions currently pending
    before the Board.
    These motions——a motion to quash subpoena,
    a
    motion for discovery sanctions,
    and a motion for directed
    finding--were referred to the Board by the hearing officer on
    January 21,
    1993.
    The motion to quash subpoena was filed by
    American States Insurance Company, and seeks to quash
    a subpoena
    served by Forest Preserve on an American States claims adjustor.
    That subpoena called for the claims adjustor to appear for
    deposition, and to bring all “correspondence,
    notes, memoranda,
    claims, tenders,
    insurance policies, certificates of insurance,
    and all other documents” related in any way to the respondents
    in
    this case.
    American States contends that the subpoena seeks
    irrelevant and privileged information, and has raised claims of
    attorney-client privilege and work product privilege.
    American
    States has not provided any of the documents claimed to be
    privileged.
    The hearing officer conducted a hearing on the
    motion to quash subpoena on January 20,
    1993, at which all
    parties presented their arguments on that motion.
    The Board notes that in its brief,
    filed February 16,
    1993,
    Forest Preserve makes no reference to the outstanding motion to
    quash subpoena,
    and does not contend that the lack of the
    information requested by that subpoena has prevented it from
    proving its claims,
    or that an additional hearing might be
    necessary if the documents withheld by American States are found
    to be outside the scope of the claimed privileges.
    Thus,
    the
    O~39-O5O9
    2
    Board is unclear whether the information which was the subject of
    the subpoena
    is still at issue.
    Forest Preserve is directed to
    inform the Board whether or not it still seeks the information
    requested by the challenged subpoena.
    Forest Preserve’s response
    to this order shall be filed with the Board by March
    8,
    1993.
    Finally, the Board notes that we will decide the motions for
    discovery sanctions and for directed finding when we enter our
    final decision in this case.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby cert~ythat the above order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ________________,
    1993,
    by a vote of
    (c ~
    Control Board
    0J39-0510

    Back to top