ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 7, 1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 90-73
    (Enforcement)
    ILLINOIS CEMENT COMPANY,
    )
    an Illinois corporation,
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer and N. Nardulli):
    We dissent from the majority’s order granting complainant’s
    motion to continue hearing for 120 days.
    The Attorney General, on behalf of complainant, filed this
    enforcement case on April 20, 1990. The instant motion to continue
    hearing for 120 days was filed on June 4, 1990. Complainant states
    that settlement negotiations had been proceeding, but that an
    impasse has been reached. Thus, complainant contends that it
    requires additional time to prepare for a contested hearing,
    including the filing of interrogatories and req-uests for production
    of documents, and subsequently discovery depositions.
    We are unable to understand how complainant could have been
    engaged in settlement negotiations before pursuing discovery. To
    do so, without being informed of the full circumstances of the
    case, takes a great risk that any settlement reached may be
    inadequate. Complainant has essentially stated that it was willing
    to possibly settle for less if an agreement could have been
    reached, and that only now that an impasse has been reached will
    complainant explore the full facts of the case. In other words,
    complainant engaged in settlement negotiations without knowing what
    this case is “worth”. We strongly object to this conduct.
    Additionally, we believe that even if a continuance was
    warranted, 120 days is much too long. In the civil courts it is
    not uncommon to be forced to perform discovery in 21 to 30 days.
    Even doubling this time to 60 days is only half of the time
    requested by complainant. Complainant, as the prosecutor of this
    case, controls when the case was be filed with the Board, and thus
    should be at least minimally ready to proceed with the case the day
    it is filed. By granting complainant’s motion, the majority has
    allowed complainant until October 7, 1990 to prepare for hearing.
    That is five and a half months to prepare to proceed with a case
    which should have been at least minimally ready on April 20, the
    day it was filed with the Board. We cannot agree with this type
    112—35
    2
    of delay.
    For these reasons, we dissent.
    J~jTheodore Meyer ~
    ichael~t. Nardulli
    Board Neither
    Board Member
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
    on the //~K~~day of
    _______________,
    1990.
    ~
    ~,
    //~~
    Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois I~6llutionControl Board
    112—36

    Back to top