BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BO4J~CF~VED
CITY OF KANKAKEE,
)
Ct.i~.~S
OFFICE
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-03-125
~R
4
2003
)
ST~&TE
OF
ILLINOIS
v.
)
(Third:ParyPoll~oRt~l~J
Board
)
Facility Siting Appea)
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
MERLIN KARLOCK,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-133
v.
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
MICHAEL
WATSON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-134
)
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-135
)
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE,
COUNTY
)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
CLERw~y~pp~
APR
~i200~
NOTICE OF FILING
STATE OF ILLINOIS
TO:
See Attached
Service
List
PollutiOfl Control
Board
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that on April 4, 2003, we filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
the
attached
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS,
INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER
CITY
OF
KANKAKEE’S
INTERROGATORIES
and
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.’S
OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER
CITY
OF
KANKAKEE’S DOCUMENT REQUESTS
in
the
above entitled matter.
~
110ne of Its Att
rneys
Donald
J. Moran
Lauren Blair
PEDERSEN
& HOUPT
Attorneys for Petitioner
161 N. Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
(312) 641-6888
363065
This DocumentIs Printed on RecycledPaper
PROOF
OF SERVICE
Victoria
L.
Kennedy,
a
non-attorney,
on
oath
states
that
she
served the
foregoing WASTE
MANAGEMENT OFILLINOIS, INC.’SOBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER CITY OF
KANKAKEE’S
INTERROGATORIES
and WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS,
INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER
CITY
OF
KANKAKEE’S
DOCUMENT
REQUESTS
on
the
following
parties
by
depositing same in the U.S. mail at
161 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601, at 5:00 p.m. on this 4th day of
April, 2003:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph
Street, Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Charles F. Helsten, Esq.
Richard S. Porter, Esq.
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL
61105-1389
(815)
490-4900
(815)
963-9989
(fax)
Kenneth A. Leshen, Esq.
One Dearborn Square, Suite
550
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815)
933-3385
(815) 933-3397
(fax)
Jennifer J.
Sackett Pohlenz,
Esq.
175
W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 540-7540
(312) 540-0578
(fax)
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite
11th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 814-8917
(312)
814-3669
(fax)
Leland Milk
6903
5. Route
45-52
Chebanse, IL
60922
George Mueller, Esq.
501
State
Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
(815) 433-4705
(815)433-4913
(fax)
Elizabeth Harvey,
Esq.
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One IBM Plaza
Suite 2900
330 North Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 321-9100
(312) 321-0990
(fax)
L. Patrick Power, Esq.
956 North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815) 937-6937
(815) 937-0056 (fax)
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
(815) 937-9838
(815) 937-9164
(fax)
Kenneth A. Bleyer
923 W. Gordon Terrace #3
Chicago, IL 60613
Patricia O~Dell
1242 Arrowhead Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Victoria
L. Kennedy
363065
This Documentis Printed on RecycledPaper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROLBOA~~
~
APR
S
2003
CITY OF KANKAKEE,
Petitioner,
V.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MERLIN KARLOCK,
Petitioner,
V.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
MICHAEL
WATSON,
Petitioner,
V.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondents.
PCB 03-03-125
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
(Third-Party Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
PCB 03-133
(Third-Party Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
PCB 03-134
(Third-Party Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
PCB 03-135
(Third-Party Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
DJM
361543
vi
April 1,2003
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO PETITIONER CITY OF KANKAKEE’S INTERROGATORIES
Respondent WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII’),
by its
attorneys,
Pedersen & Houpt, objects to the interrogatories
submitted by Petitioner City of Kankakee by
stating as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
I.
WMII
objects to these interrogatories
as improper, unreasonable and exceeding
the permissible scope of discovery under the Illinois Pollution Control Board Procedural Rules.
The interrogatories appear to seek information relating to alleged prejudgment of adjudicative
facts or fundamental fairness.
Before such requests may be made, however, Petitioner must
allege specific instances or evidence of pre-filing collusion or prejudgment.
Land and Lakes Co.
v.
Village of Romeoville, No. PCB
92-25,
slip. op. at 4 (June 4,
1992);
DiMaggio
v.
Solid
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, No. PCB 89-138, slip op. at 7 (October 27,
1989).
Petitioner has made no allegations of any specific instances of misconduct which would justify
its broad and wide-ranging interrogatories.
2.
WMII objects to the interrogatories
on the basis that they seek information
relating to the process by which the Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan was
enacted and amended.
The Pollution Control Board lacks the authority to review this legislative
process.
Residents Against a Polluted Environment v.
County of LaSalle, No. PCB 96-243, slip
op. at 15-16 (Sept.
19, 1996) affd
Residents Against Polluted Environment v. Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
293 I1l.App.3d 219, 687 N.E.2d
552,
555
(3d Dist.
1997).
Thus, any
interrogatory that seeks such information is improper and beyond the scope ofpermissible
discovery.
DJM
361543
vi
April 4,2003
3.
WMII objects to the interrogatories to
the extent they request information relating
to the Amended and Restated Host Community Agreement.
Drafting and execution ofthe host
agreement is a legislative function which is not an
indication ofprejudgment or bias.
Residents
Against a Polluted Environment v. County ofLaSalle, No. PCB 96-243, slip op. at
15-16
(Sept.
19,
1996) affd Residents Against Polluted Environment v.
Illinois
Pollution Control Board, 293
Ill.App.3d
219, 687 N.E.2d 552,
555
(3d Dis.
1997).
Information concerning the Host
Agreement is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant
evidence for the issues in this appeal.
4.
WMII objects to the interrogatories
to the extent they seek disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any
other applicable privilege or protection.
OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.
2:
Please identify all persons related
in any way to WMII
who met, talked, or communicated with the County ofKankakee, County of Kankakee
department heads, professional
and
technical
staff, County employees, and
its attorneys,
including Edward
D. Smith and his assistants in the office ofthe Kankakee County State’s
Attorney’s Office, prior to the filing ofthe landfill
Siting Application on August 16, 2002
relating to the planning,
development and siting ofthe
Facility, and for each such individual,
please:
(a)
identify the individual by name and title and identify what type of communication
took place (written, oral, telephone, e-mail, etc.);
(b)
the subject matter ofeach such communication;
(c)
describe and delineate the exact statements made during the course ofeach such
communication;
(d)
identify date, time and duration ofeach such communication;
(e)
identify the location ofeach such communication; and
(f)
identify all persons present at such communication.
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
DJM
361543
vi
April
1,2003
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates its general
objections as if fully set
forth herein.
WMII
further objects to the phrase
‘all persons related in any way to WMII”
as vague and overbroad.
WMII further objects on the grounds that the time period for response in this interrogatory is
unreasonable
and unduly burdensome.
INTERROGATORY NO.
3:
Please identify all persons related in any way to WMII
who met, talked, or communicated with any members ofthe Kankakee County Board, County of
Kankakee department heads,
professional and technical staff,
County employees, and its
attorneys, including Edward D.
Smith and his assistants in the office ofthe Kankakee County
State’s Attorney’s Office, prior to the filing of the Landfill Siting Application on August
16, 2002
relating to the planning, development and siting ofthe Facility, and for each such individual,
please:
(a)
identify the individual by name and title and identify what type ofcommunication
took place (written, oral, telephone, e-mail, etc.);
(b)
the subject matter of each such communication;
(c)
describe and
delineate the
exact statements made during the course of each such
communication;
(d)
identify
date, time and duration ofeach such communication;
(e)
identify the location ofeach such communication; and
(f)
identify all
persons present at such communication.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates its
general objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to
the phrase “all persons related
in any way to WMII” as vague and overbroad.
WMII further objects on the grounds that the time period for response in this interrogatory is
unreasonable and unduly burdensome.
INTERROGATORY NO.
4:
Identify all persons related in any way to WMII who met, talked,
or otherwise communicated with the County of Kankakee and/or the Kankakee County Board,
County ofKankakee department heads,
professional and technical staff, County employees,
and
its attorneys including Edward D.
Smith
and his assistants
in the office ofthe Kankakee County
State’s Attorney’s Office, after the filing ofthe Landfill Siting Application on August
16, 2002
relating to
the planning,
development and siting ofa solid waste
management facility, and for
each such individual, please
(a)
identify the individual by
name
and title and
identify what type of communication
took place (written, oral, telephone, e-mail, etc.);
(b)
identify the subject matter of each such communication;
This Documentwas Printed on Recycled Paper
DiM
361543
vi
April 1,2003
-4—
(c)
describe and delineate the exact statements made during the course of each such
communication;
(d)
identify date, time
and
duration ofeach such communication;
(e)
identify the location ofeach such communication; and
(f)
identify all persons present at such communication.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates
its general objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to the phrase “all persons related in any way to
WMII”
as vague and overbroad.
WMII further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad because it requests information or
communications that was exchanged or that occurred at the siting hearings.
INTERROGATORY NO.
5:
Identify any persons related in any
way to
WMII who
communicated with each other regarding the, planning and siting ofthe facility.
(a)
identify the individual by name and title and
identify what type of communication
took place (written, oral, telephone, e-mail, etc.);
(b)
identify the subject matter ofeach such communication;
(c)
describe and
delineate the exact statements made during the course ofeach such
communication;
(d)
identify date, time and duration ofeach such communication;
(e)
identify the location ofeach such communication;
and
(f)
identify all persons present at such communication.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates
its general objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to the phrase “all persons related in
any way to WMII” as vague and overbroad.
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
DiM
361543
vi
April 1,2003
WMII further objects to
this interrogatory because the phrase “who communicated with each
other” is vague
and
ambiguous.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory as seeking irrelevant
information and as a request not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant
evidence.
Respectfully submitted,
~ASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
One of Its A~Aorneys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
This Documentwas Printed on Recycled Paper
DiM
361543
vi
April 1,2003
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RE C
E~E
D
CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
CLERK’S
OFFICE
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-03-125
APR
4
2003
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
v.
)
(Third-Party
~
Board
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
COUNTY
)
BOARD OF
KANKAKEE,
and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
MERLIN
KARLOCK,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-133
v.
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
BOARD
OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-134
)
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
COUNTY
)
BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE,
and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-135
)
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY
OF
KANKAKEE,
COUNTY
)
BOARD OF
KANKAKEE,
and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
DJM
361543
vi
April 4,2003
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO PETITIONER CITY
OF
KANKAKEE’S
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Respondent WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”), by its attorneys,
Pedersen
& Houpt, objects to
the document
requests submitted by Petitioner City ofKankakee
by stating as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.
WMII objects to
these document requests as improper, unreasonable and
exceeding the permissible scope ofdiscovery under the Illinois Pollution Control Board
Procedural Rules.
The document
requests appear to seek
information relating to alleged
prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or fundamental fairness.
Before such requests may be made,
however,
Petitioner must allege
specific instances or evidence ofpre-filing collusion or
prejudgment.
Land and Lakes Co.
v. Village of Romeoville, No. PCB
92-25,
slip. op.
at 4
(June
4,
1992);
DiMaggio v. Solid
Waste Agency ofNorthern Cook
County, No. PCB 89-138, slip op.
at 7 (October 27,
1989).
Petitioner has made no allegations of any specific instances of
misconduct which would justify its broad and wide-ranging document requests.
2.
WMII objects to the document requests on the basis that they seek
information
relating to the process by which the Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan was
enacted and
amended.
The Pollution Control Board lacks the authority to review this legislative
process.
Residents Against a Polluted Environment v. County of LaSalle, No. PCB 96-243, slip
op. at
15-16 (Sept.
19,
1996) affirmed; Residents Against Polluted Environment v. Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
293 Ill.App.3d 219, 687 N.E.2d
552,
555
(3d Dist.
1997).
Thus, any
document request that seek
such information is
improper and beyond the scope ofpermissible
discovery.
DiM
361543
vi
April 4,2003
3.
WMII objects to the document requests to the extent they request information
relating to the Amended and Restated Host Community Agreement.
Drafting and
execution of
the host agreement is a legislative function which is not indicator of prejudgment or bias.
Residents Against a Polluted Environment v.
County ofLaSalle, No. PCB 96-243, slip op. at
15-
16 (Sept.
19,
1996) affirmed; Residents Against Polluted
Environment v. Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, 293 Ill.App.3d 219, 687 N.E.2d
552,
555
(3d Dis. 1997).
4.
WMII objects to
the document requests to the extent they seek disclosure of
information protected
by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any
other applicable
privilege or protection.
OBJECTIONS TO
SPECIFIC DOCUMENT REQUESTS
DOCUMENT REQUEST 1:
Identify and produce any and
all documents, letters,
communications or memoranda prepared by WMII that relate or refer to the planning,
development or siting ofthe Facility.
Please identify which ofthese documents, letters,
communications or memoranda were provided to the County of Kankakee and
when they were
provided.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates its general objections
as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to the request for documents that in any way “relate or refer to
the planning,
development or siting ofthe Facility” as overbroad.
The request may include a wide-range of
internal business documents that are not relevant to the issued raised in this appeal, nor are
reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of any relevant evidence.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
2:
Identify and produce any documents, letter,
communications or memoranda prepared by Wivill that relate or refer to the Solid Waste
Management Plan ofthe County ofKankakee.
Please identify which ofthese documents, letters,
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
DJM
361543
vi
April 4,2003
communications or memoranda were provided to
the County of Kankakee and when they were
provided.
OBJECTION:
WIMII
incorporates its general objections relating to discovery of information
referring to the Kankakee County Solid
Waste Management Plan as if fully set forth herein.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
3:
All
reports, correspondence, and other documents received by
WMII (including, but not limited to, its consultants, attorneys and
experts) from the County of
Kankakee (including, but not limited to, its consultants, attorneys and experts) regarding the
planning,
development,
and
siting ofthe Facility and when they were provided.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this request to the extent it requests documents delivered or
submitted by Kankakee County to any participants at or during its
siting hearings.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 4:
All notes, minutes, and other documents ofall phone calls and
meetings between WMII and the County ofKankakee, the Kankakee County Board, or their
agents relating to the planning, development, and siting ofthe Facility.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to
the phrase “notes, minutes, and
other documents ofall phone
calls” as vague and
ambiguous.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
5:
Any and all records or documents referring or relating to billing
by the
firm
ofHinshaw and Culbertson to any entity whatsoever relating or referring to the
planning or siting of the Facility or to the drafting, construction or interpretation ofthe Solid
Waste Management Plan ofthe County ofKankakee.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates
its general objections
relating to discovery ofinformation
referring to the
Kankakee
County
Solid Waste Management Plan as if fully set forth herein.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 6:
All
correspondence, contracts or other communication between
each opinion witness or other witness and WMII, (including, but not limited to, its consultants,
attorneys and experts) in connection with the subject matter ofthis action.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this request on the grounds that it does not seek relevant
information
and is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence.
The
request seeks information between WMII and the witnesses it presented at the siting hearing.
This Document was Printed on
Recycled Paper
DiM
361543
vi
April 4,2003
Such information is not relevant to any issues that have been raised in this appeal.
In addition,
the Pollution Control Board is not authorized to evaluate the contractual relationship between a
siting applicant and its witnesses.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
7:
All demonstrative exhibits which WMII or its agenets may offer
or use at hearing.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects to Document Request 7 because it is unable, at this time,
to
identify which exhibits may be relevant or appropriate for the issues the City intends to
address
at the hearing.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
8:
All
exhibits which WMII, or its
agents may offer into evidence or
otherwise use at hearing including, but not limited to, documents, summaries, objects, charts, and
other items.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects to Document Request No.
8 because it
is unable, at this time, to
identify which
exhibits may be relevant or appropriate for the issues the City intends to address
at the hearing.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 9:
All
transcripts, statements, articles, writings or other documents
or tangible items which WMII or its agents may use at hearing in
direct or cross-examination of
any witness.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects to Document Request
9 because it is unable, at this time, to
identify which documents may be relevant or appropriate for the issues the City intends to
address at the hearing.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 10:
All releases, covenants or other agreements, promises or
understandings (including
any document reflecting or referring to the same) with respect to the
subject matter of this action,
which is not contained in the Landfill Siting Application nor
admitted
into evidence at the Kankakee County Board hearing on the Application.
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
DJM
361543
vi
April 4,2003
OBJECTION:
WJ\4II
objects to the phrase “with respect to the subject matter ofthis action” as
vague and ambiguous.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 11:
Any and
all documents or things set
forth or referred to in
Respondent’s answers to
interrogatories propounded by Petition or identified in response to said
interrogatories, or which Respondent or Respondent’s counsel consulted in preparation ofsaid
answers.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this
request on the grounds that the phrase
“set forth or referred
to in
Respondent’s answers to interrogatories” is vague and ambiguous.
WMII further objects to
the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client or work-product
privilege.
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161
North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
Respectfully submitted,
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
By
ILLINOIS, INC.
One ofIts
A
orneys
DJM
361543
vi
April4,2003
-6-
