ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 9, 1999
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v.
    PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE COMPANY, a
    Delaware corporation,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-191
    (Enforcement - Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. McFawn):
    This case is before the Board on two motions filed by complainant, the People of the State of Illinois: a
    “Motion to Set Hearing Date” filed on August 23, 1999, and a “Motion to Relocate Hearing” filed on August 27,
    1999. Respondent Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company (Panhandle) filed a response to the “Motion to Set
    Hearing Date” on August 27, 1999. The Board denies complainant’s “Motion to Set Hearing Date”; however, the
    Board cancels the hearing scheduled by the hearing officer for September 21-23, 1999. This action renders
    complainant’s “Motion to Relocate Hearing” moot.
    Complainant commenced this action on June 29, 1999. Panhandle filed an answer and affirmative defenses
    on July 27, 1999, and on August 3, 1999, propounded its first set of discovery requests. Hearing Officer John Knittle
    set an initial status conference for August 16, 1999.
    At the initial status conference, Panhandle noted that under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.125(a), the hearing
    officer is required to set a hearing within 90 days of the date of filing unless the Board orders otherwise.
    1
    Although
    complainant asserted that it would not be ready for hearing at that time, on August 20, 1999, the hearing officer
    issued an order setting the hearing for September 21-23, 1999; these dates are within 90 days of the filing of the
    complaint. Also on August 20, 1999, the hearing officer issued an order setting deadlines for filing dispositive
    motions and responses (August 27, 1999, and September 3, 1999, respectively) and a deadline for completion of
    discovery (September 17, 1999). The hearing officer’s order also set another status conference on September 20,
    1999.
    The Board notes initially that the hearing officer was correct to set a hearing within 90 days of filing of the
    complaint. Complainant describes the time frame set in Section 103.125(a) as “discretionary,” “Motion to Set
    Hearing Date” at 2, but the discretion rests with the Board, not the hearing officer. Absent a Board order providing
    otherwise, the hearing officer is required by Section 103.125(a) to comply with the 90-day time frame. In a case
    where a longer time frame is appropriate, the parties must seek relief from this requirement from the Board, as
    complainant has done here.
    In the “Motion to Set Hearing Date,” complainant asserts that it will need at least seven months for
    discovery and “a few months to prepare for hearing,” and asks the Board to set a hearing in this matter on or after
    May 28, 2000. Panhandle takes issue with a number of complainant’s assertions in the motion, and recommends
    that rather than setting a specific hearing date, the Board cancel the scheduled hearing and have the hearing officer
    set a new hearing date after the September 20 status conference.
    1
    Section 103.125(a) provides, “The Hearing Officer, after appropriate consultation with the parties, shall set a time
    and place for hearing to be held within 90 days after the filing of the complaint unless the Board orders otherwise.”
    2
    Given the nature of the allegations in this case, some lengthier period for discovery is appropriate. The
    parties agree that the current hearing dates do not allow sufficient time for discovery, and the Board accordingly
    vacates those hearing dates. The Board cannot conclude, however, that a hearing date in May of 2000 or later
    should be set at this time. Panhandle’s objections to the timeline proposed by complainant are well taken.
    Complainant’s motion does not explain why discovery would take seven months, or why, after completion of
    discovery, hearing preparation will require months of additional work. Complainant appears to be factoring in
    time to handle contingencies which may never occur,
    i.e.
    , additional rounds of written discovery or depositions
    which may not be necessary and scheduling conflicts which may not arise. It may be that this case could proceed to
    hearing before May of 2000.
    The Board therefore denies complainant’s “Motion to Set Hearing Date.” The current September 1999
    hearing dates however, are vacated. The Board also vacates the dispositive motion deadline and discovery
    deadline set in the hearing officer’s order of August 20, 1999. The hearing officer is directed to set a hearing date
    after consultation with the parties, taking into account the parties’ need for discovery and hearing preparation.
    Because the hearing which was the subject of complainant’s “Motion to Relocate Hearing” has been
    cancelled, that motion is moot and is denied on that basis.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    3
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the above order was
    adopted on the 9th day of September 1999 by a vote of 6-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top