ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 25, 1989
    CITIZENS UTILITIES CO~4PANY
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 88—151
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    This matter comes before the Board on a motion
    for sanctions
    filed
    by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    on May
    18,
    1989.
    In response, Citizens Utilities Company of
    Illinois
    (“Citizens”)
    filed
    its objections
    to and motion
    to
    strike the Agency’s motion
    for sanctions on May 23, 1989.
    (Although itself entitled
    in part as a motion,
    the Board
    construes
    this document
    as a response to the Agency’s motion.)
    On May 19,
    1989,
    the Hearing Officer
    in this matter informed the
    Board by letter that he would not be ruling on the motion for
    sanctions because the motion seeks relief
    in the form of
    dismissal
    of the petition which,
    according
    to Board procedural
    rules,
    is beyond the authority of the hearing officer
    to grant.
    In general,
    the Agency’s motion alleges Citizens has abused
    the discovery process
    in this proceeding by either failing
    to
    give responses or
    rendering incomplete responses
    to five
    of
    its
    29
    interrogatories,
    arid requests dismissal
    or any other
    relief
    deemed appropriate by the Board.
    Citizens claims that
    it
    inadvertently failed
    to answer one
    of the interrogatories
    in
    question,
    to which
    it has since responded
    (May 19,
    1989)
    in
    writing to the Agency.
    Citizens further claims
    as
    to the other
    four that “the
    Agency
    does not like Citizens’
    answers
    to four
    of
    the other interrogatories.”
    At the onset
    it
    is necessary to
    relate certain aspects of
    procedural history prior
    to the filing
    of the Agency’s motion.
    On March
    8,
    1989,
    a pre—hearing conference conducted by the
    Hearing Officer was held between
    the parties.
    At that time,
    oral
    rulings were made regarding interrogatories and other written
    discovery requests submitted by the parties.
    By written order,
    the Hearing Officer directed that the parties file answers
    to
    interrogatories
    on or before March 22,
    1989.
    The Agency
    in its
    motion states
    that this date was later extended
    to March
    29,
    1989.
    On ~1arch 29, 1989, Citizens filed
    its answers
    to
    interrogatories.
    Included
    in those answers were several answers
    99—261
    —2—
    stating that Citizens would
    respond upon entry by the Hearing
    Officer
    of an appropriate protective order.
    The Hearing Officer
    issued
    an interim protective order
    relating to
    these matters on
    April
    21,
    1989.
    The Agency states that Citizens filed
    supplemental responses on May
    8,
    1989,
    and that both the initial
    responses of March
    29, 1989 and the supplemental responses
    of May
    8, 1989 are deficient.
    The Board
    notes that
    the record before
    it
    is insufficient
    at
    this time
    for
    it
    to adequately determine the issues presented
    in
    the motion.
    Specifically,
    the Board
    notes that neither
    the May
    8,
    1989 nor
    the May
    19, 1989 “supplemental responses” were filed
    with the Board.
    The Board
    further notes
    that the Agency did not
    file an affidavit regarding
    the facts within
    its motion.
    Also,
    the Board believes
    it
    is necessary to have additional
    input from
    its Rearing Officer before
    it can make any determinations on the
    motion.
    The Board therefore orders Citizens
    to file with
    the
    Board any supplemental responses in this matter
    it has given
    to
    the Agency.
    The Agency shall file appropriate affidavits.
    The
    Board further directs its Hearing Officer, upon review of his
    rulings and any other
    relevant matters,
    to advise the Board:
    1)
    whether
    a refusal or failure to answer
    the
    interrogatories
    in question has occurred
    in this
    case;
    and,
    2)
    if such refusal or
    failure has occurred, whether
    such
    refusal
    or failure was without sufficient justification.
    The Hearing Officer should also inform the Board
    of any other
    relevant facts he deems necessary for Board determination.
    Such
    filings shall
    be made no
    later than June
    2,
    1989.
    As
    a final matter,
    nothing
    in this Order
    shall
    be
    a
    bar
    to
    the parties resolving these discovery disputes among
    themselves
    or with aid
    of the Hearing Officer,
    prior
    to
    the Board’s ruling
    on
    those
    issues.
    This
    Order
    is
    not
    intended
    to disturb
    the date
    o~hearing
    as presently schedule~L
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    ~6~Z
    day
    of
    _________,
    1989,
    by
    a vote
    of
    7~
    ~7~l
    ~
    Dorothy M.1/~Øunn, Clerk
    Illinois P-ccllution Control Board
    99—262

    Back to top