ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    28,
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 76-65
    NOBLE and GENEVA STARNES,
    edents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    On May 20,
    1976,
    the Board granted Motions for Interlocutory
    Appeal filed by both Complainant and Respondents and ordered the
    parties
    to submit briefs on specified questions.
    Complainant’s
    Brief was submitted on June
    21,
    1976,
    and Respondents’ Brief was
    submitted on June 23,
    1976.
    The questions which the Board ordered the parties
    to address
    are the following:
    1.
    Whether the Hearing Officer erred by striking most
    of Complainant’s Requests for Admission
    of Facts;
    2.
    Whether the Hearing Officer erred in rulinq on
    Respondents~ Objections
    to Interroqatories and Motion
    to
    Strike without allowing Complainant the time
    to respond
    as provided in Procedural
    Rule 308(c);
    3.
    Whether the Hearing Officer erred in striking certain of
    Comp1ainant~s Interrogatories;
    4.
    Whether the Hearing Officer erred in overruling several
    of Respondents’
    Objections
    to Complainant’s Interrogatories.
    24
    —
    139
    —2—
    The Board has considered the Briefs submitted by the parties.
    On March
    30,
    1976,
    the Hearing Officer struck
    9 out of
    10 of Com-
    plainant’s Requests for Admission of Facts.
    The Board hereby over-
    rules
    the Hearing Officer’s Order striking these Requests.
    The
    Board finds that the requests are for “specified relevant facts”
    within the meaning of Procedural Rule
    313,
    The Board notes that
    Respondents may deny,
    qualify or plead inability to answer if they
    find such responses appropriate.
    If Respondents plead inability to
    answer, they shall show in a sworn statement that they have made
    reasonable inquiry and are unable to obtain the information without
    substantial trouble and expense.
    The Board finds that these Requests
    aid in discouraging unnecessarily protracted hearings
    (See In the
    Matter of Admissions
    ~
    R7l—21,
    3PCB83).
    As
    to the Interrogatories,
    the Board hereby upholds
    the Hearing
    Officer’s ruling as to Interrogatory No.
    40.
    The Board overrules
    the Hearing Officer’s ruling as
    to Interrogatories Nos.
    20,
    21,
    33,
    34,
    35,
    36,
    37,
    38 and
    39.
    As
    to Interrogatory No.
    39, the Board
    finds
    the Hearing Off~
    ~s ruling inappropriate because Respondents
    filed no objection.
    I~e; en Interrogatories Nos.
    20 and 21,
    33-38,
    the Board finds all of these Interrogatories relevant to its consider-
    ation of Section
    33(c)
    of the Act.
    The Board notes
    that,
    as pointed
    out
    in Respondents Brief,
    the trend in discovery has been away from
    drawing sharp
    lines between facts and opinions.
    Furthermore,
    the
    Board notes that financiaf status
    is relevant to a determination of
    penalty
    (See,
    e.g., EPA
    V.
    Aluminum Processing_~~p~,,7PCB335
    (1973))
    and that,
    therefore,
    Interrogatories
    33—38
    seek relevant, discoverable
    information.
    The Board
    upholds
    the Hearing Officer’s Order in over-
    ruling Complainant’s objections
    to Interrogatories
    15-19,
    26,
    29,
    31,
    and
    32.
    In addition, the Board
    finds that the Hearing Officer erred
    in striking the word “unnamed”
    from Complainant’s Request
    for Admis-
    sion and Interrogatories.
    We agree with Complainant’s contention
    that
    it
    is impossible to name waters that have no names and that the
    word does not render the questions vague.
    We
    fiirth~rmor~
    rio~’ t~h~,I- t
    lie
    lIe~ri
    rnj
    01 Ii ~~er
    (1
    d vrr
    in
    rtil
    i nq
    on
    Respond(Iut:n’
    0I)jeCt
    tOnS
    to ~EnLer1ToqdLor
    iee
    ~lI1(i
    Mot,
    ion
    to
    SLrike
    without
    a ~I
    OW
    inq
    Cornpil alnan
    t
    the
    tiiuo
    t~o
    respoiid
    JS
    provided
    in
    Procedural
    Rule
    308(c).
    However,
    such
    error
    has
    been
    cured
    by
    the
    Board’s
    Order
    herein.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Young abstained.
    24
    —
    140
    —3—
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution 4~ontro1
    Board, he eb
    certify the above Order was adopted on the___________
    day of
    ,,
    1976 by a vote of
    1/_p
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett,
    k
    Illinois Pollution Co
    ol Board
    24
    —
    141

    Back to top