1. BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
      2. NOTICE OF FILING
      3. GENERAL OBJECTIONS
      4. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES
      5. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC DOCUMENT REQUESTS
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
R ~ C ~
V~ D
CONTROL BOAR~LIRR~S
OFFICE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
)
10
2003
Petitioner,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-03-125
STATE
~IINO~
Pollutjo~Control
Board
(Third-Party Pollution Control
Facility
Siting Appeal)
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 03-133
(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.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached
Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 10, 2003, we filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, the
attached
WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER
KEITH
RUNYON’S
INTERROGATORIES,
OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON’S INTERROGATORIES, and
OBJECTIONS
TO PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON’S
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
in the
above entitled
matter.
W~ST~
MANAGEMENT
ØF ILLINOIS, INC.
\~
/ ~
Donald J. Moran
Lauren Blair
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
Attorneys for Petitioner
161 N. Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago,
IL 60601
Telephone:
(312) 641-6888
One ofIts
‘S
ThisDocument Is Printed on RecycledPaper
PROOF
OF SERVICE
Victoria
L.
Kennedy,
a
non-attorney,
on
oath
states
that
she
served
the
foregoing
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.’S
OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER
KEITH
RUNYON’S
INTERROGATORIES,
OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER
MICHAEL
WATSON’S
INTERROGATORIES, and OBJECTIONS TO PETITIQNI~RMICHAEL
WATSON’S DOCUMENT
REQUESTS
on the followingparties by facsimile to those parties
with
facsimilenumbers listed below and
by depositing same to all parties
in the U.S. mail at
161 N.
Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601,
at 5:00 p.m.
on this 10th day of April, 2003:
Ms. DorothyM.
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
100ParkAvenue
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)
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, Unit D
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
(815)
937-9838
(815)
937-9164 (fax)
~L~
Victoria L. Kenn~d~
This DocumentIsPrinted on Recycled Paper
KEITH RUNYON,
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO PETITIONER KEITH RUNYON’S INTERROGATORIES
Respondent WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”), by its attorneys,
Pedersen & Houpt, objects to the interrogatories submitted by Petitioner Keith Runyon by stating
as follows:
GENERAL
OBJECTIONS
1.
WMII objects to these interrogatories and the Definitions and Instructions as
improper, unreasonable and exceeding the permissible
scope of discovery under the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board (“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.
RECEiVED
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
)
APR1O2003
)
STATE
O~IWNOJS
Petitioner,
)
Pollution
Control Board
V
PCB 03-135
)
(Third-Party
Pollution Control
)
Facility
Siting Appeal)
)
)
(Consolidated with PCB 03-125, 03-
)
133, 03-134)
Respondents.
)
363318
2.
W~vIIIobjects 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 Board lacks the authority to review this legislative
process.
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 Dist.
1997).
Thus, any interrogatory that
seeks such information is improper and beyond the scope ofpermissible
discovery.
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 of prejudgment or bias.
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
Ill. App. 3d 219, 687 N.E.2d
552, 555
(3d Dist.
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 request information relating
to the statutory criteria, as the review before the Board shall be
based “exclusively on the record
before the county board orthe governing body of the municipality.’
415
ILCS
5/40.1(b).
Although it is proper forthe Board to hear new evidence relevant to the fundamental fairness of
the proceedings where such evidence necessarily lies outside ofthe record, a
de
novo
review is
not appropriate on
a review ofthe statutory criteria.
Land & Lakes Co.
v. Pollution Control
This Documentwas Printed on Recycled Paper
363318
—2—
Board,
319 Ill. App. 3d 41, 48,
743 N.E.2d
188,
194 (3d Dist.
2000).
The Board
is restricted to
reviewing the factual findings rendered below.
Because the Board cannot make its own findings
of fact concerning whether the statutory criteria was met, the admission of evidence regarding the
statutory criteria is prohibited.
5.
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 of
Kankakee,
County
ofKankakee department heads,
professional technical staff,
County employees,
County contractors, County attorneys, including Edward D.
Smith and his
assistants in the office of the Kankakee County State’s Attorneys
sic
Office,
Attorney Charles Helsten, prior to the filing ofthe landfill Siting Application on
August
16, 2002 relating to the site selection, planning, development and
siting of
the 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 of each 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
overly broad.
This Document was Printed on
RecycledPaper
363318
WMII further objects on the grounds that the time period for response
in this interrogatory is
unreasonable and unduly burdensome.
WMII further objects on the grounds that this
interrogatory requests information not relevant to the petition for review filed by Mr.
Runyon.
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 employees,
and its attorney, including Edward D.
Smith,
and his assistants
in the office ofthe Kankakee County
State’s Attorney’s office
sic
prior to the filing ofthe Landfill
Siting Application on August
16, 2002
relating to the site selection, planning,
development and siting of the 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 of each 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 WMJI” as vague and
overbroad.
WMII further objects on the grounds that the time period for response in this interrogatory is
unreasonable and unduly burdensome.
WMII further objects on the grounds that this
interrogatory requests information not relevant to
the petition for review filed by Mr. Runyon.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it duplicates the information sought in
Interrogatory No. 2.
INTERROGATORY NO.
4:
Identify all persons related in any way to WIVIII
who met, talked or otherwise communicated with the County ofKankakee and/or
the Kankakee County Board, Members of the Kankakee County Board, County of
Kankakee department heads,
professional and technical
staff, County employees,
County contractors including Efram Gil.,
sic
and its attorneys including Edward
This
Document
was
Printed on Recycled Paper
363318
—4—
D. Smith and his
assistants in the office ofthe Kankakee County State’s Attorney’s
Office, after the
filing of the Landfill
Siting Application on August
16, 2002
relating to the site selection, planning, development and siting of a 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;
(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 WMJI” 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.
WMJT further
objects on the grounds that this interrogatory requests information not relevant to the petition for
review filed by Mr. Runyon.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 5:
Identify all documents which
support the efforts or
actions ofthe County of Kankakee, its employees, it contractors, its committees,
its
subcommittees, its
attorneys, including
Edward D. Smith and his assistants in
the office ofthe Kankakee County State’s Attorney’s
Office, to involve or attempt
to involve the public
in the selection ofa site for the proposed facility, please:
(a)
identify the individual by name and title and identify what type of
communication took place (written, oral, telephone, e-mail, etc.
Please include phone billing records ofCounty and
WMII
employees, both landline
sic
and
cell phone records.;
(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 of each such communication;
(e)
identify the location of each such communication; and
(f)
identify all persons present at such communication.
This
Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363318
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates
its general objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks documents and information concerning the actions
and
efforts of individuals and entities other than WMII.
WMII further objects to this
Interrogatory because the phrase “to involve or attempt to
involve the public”
is vague and
ambiguous.
WMII further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information not relevant to the
petition for review filed by Mr. Runyon.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 6:
Identify all
documents that clearly demonstrate
and document that the proposed pollution control facility is not so located, in
whole or in part, close to or above a major Kankakee County and or regional
aquifer.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates its
general
objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to this Interrogatory because the phrase “clearly demonstrate and document”
is
vague and ambiguous.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 7:
Identify the County
Board meeting at which time
the entire board was given Addendas sic
A and B ofthe Host Fee agreement.
Please provide minutes and tape recordings of said meeting and the role call vote
of the approval or denial ofsaid addenda to
the Host Agreement.
OBJECTION:
WMH incorporates its general objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to
this Interrogatory as it seeks information and tangible items
concerning
individuals and
entities other than WMII, and not within WMH’s possession or control.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 8:
Identify the County
Board meeting during which
the County Board approved a written extension to the Host Fee agreement, as
called for in the Host Fee
agreement, which had not been submitted by the
deadline of June
1, 2002
(a)
submit a copy ofthe agenda ofthat board meeting
(b)
submit a copy ofthe minutes ofsaid meeting
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363318
(c)
submit a copy of the extension letter
(d)
submit a tape recording of said meeting
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates its general objections as if fully set
forth herein.
WIN/Ill
further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information and
tangible items concerning
individuals and entities other than WMII, and not within WMII’s possession or control.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 9:
Identify the
ad hoc
host fee committee members
who recommended the Host Fee Agreement to
the full County Board.
(a)
submit copies ofall required public notices ofthe meetings of said
committee
(b)
submit copies ofagendas of all meetings ofsaid
committee
(c)
submit copies ofminutes ofall meetings of said committee
(d)
submit copies of tape recording of all meetings of said committees
OBJECTION:
.WMII incorporates its general objections as if fully set forth herein.
WMII
further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information and tangible items
concerning
individuals and entities other than WMH, and not within WMII’s possession or control.
Dated:
April 10, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
TE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
By
b~
/ ~
One of Its A/torneys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363318
-7-
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR~ERK’S
OFFICE
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
/\PR
1
0
2003
)
STATE
O1~
IWNOIS
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-134
PollutIon
Control Board
)
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
BOARD OF
KANKAKEE,
and
WASTE
)
(Consolidated with PCB 03-125, 03-
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
133, 03-135)
)
Respondents.
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON’S INTERROGATORIES
Respondent WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”), by its attorneys,
Pedersen &
Houpt, objects to
the interrogatories submitted
by Petitioner Michael
Watson by
stating as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
I.
WMII objects to these interrogatories and the Definitions and Instructions as
improper, overly broad, unreasonable and exceeding the permissible scope ofdiscovery under
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (the “Board”) Procedural Rules (the “Rules”).
These
interrogatories impermissibly exceed the maximum number ofinterrogatories permitted under
Section
101.620 ofthe Rules.
Section
101.620 provides that a party may serve “a maximum of
30 written interrogatories, including subparts.”
Petitioner’s interrogatories, including subparts,
total
122.
2.
WMII objects to these interrogatories to
the extent they seek information relating
to alleged prejudgment of adjudicative facts or fundamental unfairness “concerning the
363362
communication, conduct and decision-making process of Kankakee, the committee that made
recommendations to and advised Kankakee, and WMII”.
(See Petitioner’s Amended Petition for
Review,
¶1J1 Oc and d).
Before such discovery 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 of Northern Cook County, No. PCB 89-138, slip op. at 7 (October 27,
1989).
Petitioner has only made the generalized and vague statements of “improper
exparte
communications” and “other fundamental fairness issues”.
(See Petitioner’s Amended Petition
for Review, ¶1JI Oc and d).
Petitioner has failed to make allegations ofspecific instances of
misconduct which would justify its
broad and
wide-ranging interrogatories.
3.
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 Board lacks the authority
to review this legislative
process.
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 III. 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.
4.
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
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
2
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 Dist.
1997).
Information concerning
the Host
Agreement is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant
evidence forthe issues in this appeal.
5.
WMII objects to
the interrogatories to the extent they request information relating
to the statutory criteria, as the review before the Board shall be based “exclusively on the record
before the county board or the governing body ofthe municipality.”
415 ILCS
5/40.1(b).
Although it is proper for the Board to
hear new evidence relevant to the fundamental fairness of
the proceedings where
such evidence necessarily lies outside ofthe record, a
de
novo
review is
not appropriate on a review ofthe statutory criteria.
Land & Lakes Co.
v. Pollution Control
Board,
319 Ill. App.
3d 41, 48,
743 N.E.2d
188,
194 (3d Dist. 2000).
The Board is restricted to
reviewing the factual findings rendered below.
Because the Board cannot make its own findings
offact concerning whether the statutory criteria was met, the admission of evidence regarding the
statutory criteria is prohibited.
6.
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.
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
3
OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify
any Communications or other documents
relied upon in
answering these Interrogatories.
OBJECTION:
WMII incorporates its
general objections as if fully set
forth herein.
INTERROGATORY NO.
5:
Identify all Person(s) involved
in any way in the
negotiation of the Host Agreement and,
with respect to each Person so identified:
a.
describe their role in
such negotiations;
b.
the time frame in which such negotiations were held;
c.
identify the Person(s) with whom they negotiated;
and
d.
the subject matter ofsuch negotiations.
OBJECTION:
WIN/Ill objects to this interrogatory because the negotiation ofthe host agreement
is a legislative
function which
is
not reviewable by the Board.
Therefore,
information
concerning the Host Agreement is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery ofrelevant evidence.
WMII further objects to
the extent this interrogatory seeks
information relating to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section
40.1(b) ofthe Illinois
Environmental Pollution
Act (the “Act”), which provides that the review
before the Board shall be
based “exclusively on the record before the county board or the
governing body ofthe municipality.”
INTERROGATORY NO.
6:
Identify all Person(s)
involved in any way in the
drafting ofthe Host Agreement and, with respect to each Person so identified,
describe what portions(s) ofthe Host Agreement they drafted.
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
4
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory because the drafting ofthe host agreement is
a legislative function which is not reviewable by the Board.
Information concerning the Host
Agreement is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery ofrelevant
evidence.
WMIT further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information relating to the
statutory criteria,
in which case discovery is prohibited
by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
7:
Identify the date(s) on which the WMII, or any of
its affiliates, parents or their officers or employees, submitted drafts or the final of
the property value protection plan attached as an Exhibit to the Host Agreement.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory
because the drafting, negotiation and
execution ofthe host agreement, and the exhibits thereto,
are legislative functions which are not
reviewable by the Board.
Information concerning the property value protection plan attached as
an Exhibit to the Host Agreement is neither relevant norreasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery ofrelevant evidence.
WMII further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks
information relating to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section
40.1(b) ofthe Act.
INTERROGATORY NO.
8:
Identify any and all Communications concerning
or relating to
the Host Agreement between WMII, and/or any ofits affiliates,
parents or their officers or employees,
and the individuals identified in each line
below (whether or not such Communication was initiated or created by WMII):
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited to those Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
5
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.
h.
Attorneys from the firms of Hinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general
public.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory because communications concerning or
relating to the Host Agreement between WMII and the individuals or entities
listed in
subparagraphs
(a) through (j) are not reviewable by the Board.
WMII also objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information relating to the statutory criteria, in which
case
discovery is prohibited by
Section 40.1(b) of the Act.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Identify any and all
Communications during the
Relevant Time, concerning or relating to the Siting Application or any ofits
component parts between WMII and/or any ofits
affiliates, parents or their
officers or employees, and any of the individuals identified below:
a.
The County (including, but not limited
to its
staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited to those Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Kari
Knise;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms of Hinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WIVIII further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
relating to an
alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any
other type of fundamental
unfairness given that Petitioner has not made any allegations ofspecific instances of misconduct.
WMII also
objects to
this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information relating to
the statutory
criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
WMII also objects
to
this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum number ofwritten
interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
10:
Identify any and all Communications concerning
or relating to Kankakee County Resolution 01-10-09-393 between WMII and/or
any of its
affiliates or parents or any oftheir officers or employees,
and any ofthe
individuals identified below:
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited to those Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional
Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County
Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WivilI objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the Board lacks
This Documentwas Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
7
authority to review the legislative process by which the Kankakee County Solid
Waste
Management Plan was enacted and amended.
WMII further objects to
this interrogatory to the
extent it seeks information relating to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited
by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
exceeds the maximum number of written interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the
Rules.
INTERROGATORY NO.
11:
Identify any
and all Communications
concerning
or relating to Kankakee County Resolution 02-03-12-48 1
between WMII and/or
any of its affiliates or parents or any oftheir officers or employees, and any ofthe
individuals identified below:
a.
The County (including, but not limited
to its
staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited
to those Members listed in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike
Quigley (during the time he
was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board
Member);
g.
George
Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the Board lacks
authority to review the legislative process by which the Kankakee County
Solid Waste
Management Plan was enacted and
amended.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory to the
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
8
extent it seeks information relating to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery
is prohibited
by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
WMII further objects to
this interrogatory on the grounds that it
exceeds the maximum number of written interrogatories permitted under Section 101.620 the
Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
12:
Identify any and
all Communications during the
Relevant Time, concerning
or relating
to the development, design,
operation or
location of a landfill expansion by WMII in Kankakee County between WMTI
and/or any of its affiliates or parents or their officers or employees,
and any of the
individuals identified below:
a.
The County (including,
but not limited
to its
staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board
(including, but not limited to those Members listed in
subparagraphs
d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley
(during the time he was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board
Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys
from the firms of Hinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin &
Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member of the general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory
as being overly broad and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory to
the extent it seeks information
relating to an alleged prejudgment of adjudicative facts or any other type offundamental
unfairness given that Petitioner has not made any allegations ofspecific instances ofmisconduct.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory to
the extent it seeks information relating to the
statutory
criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by
Section 40.1(b)
of
the Act.
WMII
This
Document was Printed on
RecycledPaper
363362
9
further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum number of
written interrogatories permitted under Section
10 1.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
13:
Identify any and all
Communications during the
Relevant Time, concerning
or relating to the development ofa landfill expansion
at, within or adjacent to the site that was the subject ofthe Siting Application
between WMII and/or any of its affiliates or parents or their officers or
employees, and any of the individuals identified:
a.
The County (including, but not limited to
its staff,
employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited
to those Members listed in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and
during the time he
was not
a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys
from the firms ofHinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman;
and
j.
Any member of the general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to
this interrogatory
as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WMII objects to the phrase “concerning or relating to the development of a landfill
expansion at, within or adjacent to
the site that was the subject ofthe Siting Application” as
vague and ambiguous.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory
on the grounds that it exceeds
the maximum number ofwritten interrogatoriespermitted under
Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
14:
Identify any and all Communications during the
Relevant Time,
concerning or relating to the operational history ofthe existing
landfill at the site that
is the subject of the Siting Application between WMII
and/or any ofits affiliates or parents or their officers or employees, and any ofthe
individuals identified below:
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
1.0
a.
The County
(including, but not limited
to
its staff, employees,
consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited to those Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time
he was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms of Hinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman;
and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to
this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
relating to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type of fundamental
unfairness given that Petitioner has not made any allegations of specific instances ofmisconduct.
WMTI further objects to this interrogatory to
the extent it seeks information relating to the
statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) of the Act.
WMII
further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum number of
written interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
15:
Identify any and
all Communications during the
Relevant Time, concerning
or relating to the decision of the County Board to
approve with or subject to conditions the Facility, between WMII and/or any ofits
affiliates or parents or their officers or employees, and any ofthe individuals
identified below:
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
1.1
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited to those Members listed in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
II
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County
Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms of Hinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMH objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to
this interrogatory to
the extent it seeks information
relating to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type offundamental
unfairness given
that Petitioner has not made any allegations ofspecific instances ofmisconduct.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information relating to the
statutory criteria, in
which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
WMII
further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum number of
written interrogatories permitted under
Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
16:
Identify any and
all Communications during the
Relevant Time, concerning or relating to the document titled
Summary Report of
the Proposed Expansion ofthe Kankakee Recycling and Disposal Facility,
prepared by the Kankakee County Staff, and
dated January 6,
1003
(or any ofthe
drafts ofthat document) or the information contained in that document or its
drafts between WMII and/or any ofits affiliates or parents or their officers or
employees, and any of the individuals identified below:
a.
The County (including, but not limited to
its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no
matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
This Document was Printed on RecycledPaper
363362
12
b.
The
County
Board
(including,
but
not
limited
to
those Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d through
g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
PamLee;
f.
MikeQuigley (during the time he was aCounty Board Memberand during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
&
Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman;
and
j.
Any member of the general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly burdensome.
WMTI further objects to this interrogatory to
the extent it seeks information relating to
an alleged
prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness given that Petitioner
has not made any
allegations of specific instances of misconduct.
WMII further objects to this
interrogatory
to
the
extent
it seeks
information relating
to
the statutory
criteria, in
which
case
discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it exceeds the maximumnumber ofwritten interrogatories permittedunder Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
17:
Identify
the date
WMII
asserts the
operational
history documents were filed with the County.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory
on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum
number ofwritten interrogatories permitted under Section 101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
18:
Identify what documents were physically filed on
August
16,
2003, by
WMII
(i.e.,
those documents which
were not
already
on file
with the County from
the siting application filed by WMII on
or about March 29,
2002). For purposes of convenience, such documents may simply be referenced by
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
1.3
the bates stamp numbers ofthe documents on file with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory as being vague in that it identifies a filing date
of”August 16, 2003”.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the
maximum number of written interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY NO.
19:
Describe each and every defense ofthe WMH to
the fundamental fairness issues itemized in Petitioner Watson’s Amended Petition
For Review of Siting.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory
as requesting information concerning
WMII’s
legal defense strategies, which is not subject to
disclosure in discovery.
WMII further objects to
the extent this interrogatory seeks the disclosure ofinformation protected by the attorney-client
privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
WMII further objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it exceeds the maximum number of written interrogatories permitted under
Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 20:
Identify each and every attempted, but not
actuated, service ofnotice, pursuant to Section 39.2(b) ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, on Robert Keller for the siting application that was
filed by WMII on or about August
16, 2002. To the extent such notice was sent by
U.S. Mail ofany form
(i.e.,
regular, first class, registered or certified mail),
identify what proofexists of such mailing.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum
number ofwritten interrogatories permitted under Section
101 .620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.21:
Identify each and every attempted, but not actuated,
serviceofnotice, pursuant to Section 39.2(b) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection
Act, on Brenda Keller for the siting application that was filed by
WIN/Ill on or about
This Documentwas Printed on
RecycledPaper
363362
1.4
August
16, 2002.
To the extent such notice was sent by U.S.
Mail ofany form
(i.e.,
regular, first
class, registered or certified mail),
identify what proof exists of such
mailing.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory
on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum
number ofwritten interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO.
22:
Identify each and every service on
Brenda Keller
which
WMII asserts was actuated or completed, pursuant to
Section
39.2 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act, on RobertKellerfor thesiting applicationthat
was filed by WMII on or about August
16, 2002.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum
number ofwritten interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY NO.
23:
Identify each and
every service on Robert Keller
which WMH asserts was actuated or completed, pursuant to Section 39.2(b) ofthe
Illinois Environmental Protection Act, on Brenda Kellerforthe siting application that
was filed by WMII on or about August
16, 2002.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it exceeds the maximum
number ofwritten interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 24:
Identify each and every Person who signed a report
or portion ofthe
Siting Application filed in support ofany ofthe statutory Criteria
of Section
3 9.2(a) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
OBJECTION:
WIVIII objects to
this
interrogatory to
the extent it seeks information relating to
the statutory criteria,
in which case discovery is prohibited by
Section 40.1(b) ofthe
Act.
WIN/Ill
further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the maximum number ofwritten
interrogatories permitted under Section
101.620 the Rules.
This Documentwas Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
1.5
Dated:
April
10, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
W~ASTEMANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS, INC.
By
~
/ /~.
One of Its
torneys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN &
HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
This Document was Printed on Recycled Paper
363362
1.6
C
RE
CE WED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAl~I13ERKS
OFFICE
APR
1
0
2003
MICHAELWATSON,
)
)
STATE Oi~ILLINOIS
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-134
Pollution
Control
Board
)
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
BOARD
OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
(Consolidated with PCB 03-125, 03-
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, NC.,
)
133,03-135)
)
Respondents.
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
TO
PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON’S DOCUMENT REOUESTS
RespondentWASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”), by its attorneys,
Pedersen & Houpt,
objects to the document requests submitted by
Petitioner Michael Watson by
stating as follows:
GENERAL
OBJECTIONS
1.
WMTI
objects to
these document requests and the Definitions and Instructions as
improper, overly broad, unreasonable and
exceeding the permissible
scope ofdiscovery under
the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (the “Board”) Procedural Rules
(the “Rules”).
The document
requests appear to seek information relating to alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative
facts or
fundamental unfairness
“concerning the communication, conduct and decision-making process of
Kankakee, the committee that made recommendations to and advised Kankakee, and
WMII”.
(See Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review, ¶~J1
Oc and d).
Before such discovery requests
may be made, however, Petitioner must allege specific instances or evidence ofpre-filing
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395
v2
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 only
made the generalized and vague
statements of “improper
exparte
communications” and
“other fundamental fairness issues”.
(See
Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review, ¶~J1
Oc and d).
Petitioner has failed to
make
allegations of specific instances ofmisconduct 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 Board
lacks the authority to review this legislative
process.
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 Dist.
1997).
Thus,
any interrogatory that
seeks such information
is improper and beyond the scope ofpermissible discovery.
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 an indication ofprejudgment or bias.
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
Ill. App. 3d 219, 687 N.E.2d 552,
555
(3d Dist.
1997).
Information concerning the
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395
v2
2
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 document requests to the extent they request information
relating to
the statutory criteria, as the review before the Board shall be based
“exclusively on the
record before the county board or the governing body ofthe municipality.”
415
ILCS
5/40.1(b).
Although it is proper for the Board to hear new evidence relevant to the fundamental fairness of
the proceedings where such evidence necessarily lies outside of the record, a
de novo
review is
not appropriate on a review ofthe statutory criteria.
Land & Lakes Co.
v. Pollution Control
Board, 319
III. App.
3d 41, 48,
743 N.E.2d 188,
194 (3d Dist. 2000).
The Board is restricted to
reviewing the factual findings rendered below.
Because the Board cannot make its own findings
of fact concerning whether the statutory criteria was met, the admission ofevidence regarding the
statutory criteria is prohibited.
5.
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 NO.
1:
Any and
all documents that you intend to
or
may utilize at any deposition taken in this matter.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this document request as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome in requesting documents that WMII “may utilize at any deposition.”
WMII further
This Document is Printed on
Recycled Paper
363395
v2
3
objects this document request to the extent it seeks disclosure ofinformation protected by the
attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO. 2:
Any and all documents that you intend to, or
may, utilize
at the hearing scheduled in this matter.
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this document request as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome in requesting documents that WMII “may utilize
at the hearing.”
WMII further
objects this document request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information protected by the
attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO. 3:
Any and all documents between, provided to,
or received by
WMII, or any of its affiliates or parents ortheir officers or
employees, any ofthe following Persons, other than those documents which are
included in the Record on Appeal, concerning
or relating to the Siting Application
or any of its component parts:
a.
The County (including, but not limited
to its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board (including, but not limited to those Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and
during the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George
Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson,
Martin & Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WIN/Ill objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information
relating to an
alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any
other type offundamental
unfairness
given that Petitioner has not made any allegations of specific instances ofmisconduct.
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395
v2
4
WMII also objects to this document
request to the extent it seeks information relating to the
statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.
4:
Any and all documents created by or
provided to any of
WMH
consultants involved in the preparation ofthe Siting
Application, or persons who testified on WMII’s behalfduring the public hearings
on the siting application filed on or around August 16, 2002, concerning or related
to the Siting Application or a landfill expansion at the site proposed in the Siting
Application, whether or not such documents were provided to anyone outside
WMII and its consultants, excluding documents included in the Record on
Appeal.
OBJECTION:
WMH
objects to
this document request as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
WIVIJI further objects to this
document
request
to
the
extent it seeks information
relating to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO.5:
Any and all documents between, provided to, or
received by WMII, or any ofits affiliates or parents or their officers or employees,
any ofthe following Persons, other than those documents which are included
in the
Record
on
Appeal,
concerning
or
relating
to
the
Resolution
01-10-09-393
(purporting to Amend Kankakee County’s Solid
Waste Management Plan):
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its staff, employees,
consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County
Board (including, but
not
limited to those
Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George
Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member of the general public.
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395
v2
5
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to
this
document
request to
the extent
it seeks
information
relating to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicativefacts or any other type offundamental unfairness
given that
Petitioner has not
made
any
allegations of specific
instances of misconduct.
WivIll
further objects to this document request on the ground that the Board lacks authority to review the
legislative process by which the Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan was enacted and
amended.
WIN/Ill further objects to this document request to the extent it seeksinformation relating
to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6:
Any and all documents between, provided to, or
received by
WMII, or any ofits
affiliates or parents or their officers or employees,
any ofthe following Persons, other than those documents which are included in the
Record on Appeal, concerning or relating to Resolution No.02-03
-
12-481 purporting
to amend Kankakee County’s Solid Waste Management Plan):
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board
(including, but
not limited
to those
Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl
Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George
Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board
Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general
public.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to
this
document
request to
the extent
it seeks information
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395
v2
6
relating to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness
giventhat Petitionerhas not made any allegationsofspecific instanees-ofmisco-nduct.
WMII further
objects to
this
document
request
on
the
ground that
the
Board
lacks
authority
to
review
the
legislative process by which the Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan was enacted and
amended.
WMII further objects to this document requestto the extent it seeks information relating
to the statutory criteria, in which case discovery is prohibited by
Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO.7:
Anyand all documents between, providedto, or
received by WMII, or any of its affiliates or parents or their officers or employees,
any ofthe following Persons, other than those documents which are included in the
Record on Appeal, concerning orrelating to the Host Agreement between WMII and
the County and/or County Board:
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its
staff, employees,
consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County
Board
(including, but
not limited
to
those Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning &
Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam
Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMIT
further objects to this
document request because communications concerning
or
relating
to
the
Host
Agreement
between
WMII
and
the
individuals
or
entities
listed
in
subparagraphs
(a)
through
(j)
are not reviewable
by
the Board.
WMII further objects to
this
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395
v2
7
document request to the extent it seeks information relating to the statutory criteria, in which
case
discovery is prohibited
by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO.8:
Any and all documents between, provided to, or
received WMII, or any of its affiliates or parents or their officers or employees, any
of the following Persons,
other than those
documents
which
are included
in the
Record on Appeal, concerning or relating to
the development, design, operation or
location of a landfill expansion by WMII in Kankakee County:
a.
The County (including, but not
limited to
its staff,
employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County
Board
(including,
but
not limited
to
those
Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d
through g, below);
c.
The County Regional
Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam
Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and
during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw &
Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board
Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMJI further objects to
this
document
request to the extent
it
seeks information
relating to an allegedprejudgment ofadjudicative facts orany othertype offundamental unfairness
given that Petitioner has not made any allegations ofspecific instances ofmisconduct.
WMII also
objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information relating to the statutory critelia,
in which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT
REQUEST NO.9:
Any and all documents between, provided to, or
received
by WMII, or any ofits
affiliates or parents or their officers or employees,
any of the following Persons, other than those
documents which are included in the
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395 v2
8
Record on Appeal, concerning orrelating to the development ofa landfill expansion
at, within or adjacent to the site that was the subject ofthe Siting Application:
a.
The County (including, but not
limited to
its staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County
Board
(including,
but not limited
to those
Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional
Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms of Hinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman;
and
j.
Any member of the general public.
OBJECTION:
WMH
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII objects to the phrase “concerning or relating to
the development of a landfill
expansion at, within or adjacent to the site that was the subject of the Siting Application” as vague
and ambiguous.
WMII further objects to this document
request to the extent it seeks information
relatingto an allegedprejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type offundamentalunfairness
given that Petitioner has not made any allegations of specific instances ofmisconduct.
WMII also
objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information relating to the statutory criteria,
in
which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.
10:
Any and all documents between, provided to,
or receivedby WMII, orany ofits affiliates or parents ortheirofficers oremployees,
any of the following Persons, otherthan those documents which are included in the
Record on Appeal, concerning or relating to
the decision ofthe Kankakee County
Board to approve, with or subject to conditions, the Facility:
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395 v2
9
a.
The County (including, but not
limited to its staff~,employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County
Board
(including,
but
not
limited to
those
Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning
& Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was a County Board Member and during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman;
and
j.
Any member ofthe general
public.
OBJECTION:
WIN/Ill
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects
to
this
document
request to
the extent
it seeks information
relating to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness
giventhat Petitioner has not made any allegations ofspecific instances-ofmisconduct.
WMII further
objects to this document
request to the extent it seeks information relating to
the statutory criteria,
in which case discovery
is prohibited by
Section 40.1(b) of the Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.
11:
Any and all documents between, provided to,
orreceived by WMII, or any ofits affiliates or parents or theirofficers oremployees,
any ofthe following Persons, other than those documents which are included in the
Record on Appeal, concerning orrelating to the document titled
Summary Reportof
the ProposedExpansion ofthe Kankakee Recycling and Disposal Facility,
prepared
by the KankakeeCounty Staff, and dated January 6, 1003 (or anyofthe drafts ofthat
document)
or the information contained in that document or its drafts:
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its
staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter if employed by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board
(including,
but
not limited
to
those
Members listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning
& Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395 v2
10
e.
Pam Lee;
f.
Mike Quigley (during the time he was aCounty Board Member and during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms ofHinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMH
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to
this
document
request
to
the extent
it seeks information
relating to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type of fundamental unfairness
giventhat Petitioner hasnot made any allegations ofspecific instances-ofmiscc’r4duct.
WMII further
objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information relating to the statutory
criteria,
in
which case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT
REQUEST
NO.
12:
A
copy
of the
cellular or
mobile
phone
invoices,
itemized
to
show
phone
calls made
and/or
received,
from
or to
Dale
Hoekstra, for the time period from
August 16, 2002 to February 28,
2003.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMTI further objects to the extent this document request seeks information relating
to an alleged prejudgment of adjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness given
that Petitioner has not made any
allegations ofspecific instances of misconduct.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO.
13:
Acopy ofthe cellular ormobile phone invoices
or itemization ofphone callsmade and/or received to or from Dale Hoekstra, on the
or any mobile or cellular phone used by Mr. Hoekstra
on January 31, 2003.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WIN/Ill further objects to
the extent this document request seeks information relating
This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395 v2
11
to an alleged prejudgment of adjudicative facts or any other type of fundamental unfairness given
that Petitioner has not made any allegations ofspecific instances ofmisconduct.
DOCUMENT
REQUEST
NO.
14:
A
copy
of the
cellular or
mobile
phone
invoices, itemized to show phone calls made and/or received, from or to Lee
Addleman, for the time
period from August
16, 2002 to February 28, 2003.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to the extent this
document request seeks information relating
to an alleged prejudgment of adjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness
given
that Petitioner has not made any allegations of specific instances ofmisconduct.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.15:
Acopy ofthe cellular ormobile phone invoices
oritemization ofphone callsmade and/or received toDrfroniLee Addleman, on the
or any mobile or cellular phone used by Mr. Addleman on January 31, 2003.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome.
WMII further objects to the extent this document request seeks information relating
to an alleged prejudgment of adjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness given
that Petitioner has not made any allegations of specific instances ofmisconduct.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO.
16:
Any and all documents showing,in an itemized
manner,
the phone
calls made
or received from
anyone
at WMII
to
any
of the
following Persons, for the time period from August
16, 2002 to February 28, 2003:
a.
Karl Kruse, Kankakee County Board Chairman;
b.
George Washington, Jr., County Board Member;
c.
Pam Lee, County Board Member; and
d.
Mike Quigley.
This Document
is Printed on Recycled Paper
363395 v2
12
OBJECTION:
WMII objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information relating
to an alleged prejudgment ofadjudicative facts or any other type offundamental unfairness given
that Petitioner has not made any allegations of specific instances of misconduct.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
NO.
17:
Any and all documents concerning or relating
to
or
evidencing
communications
between
WIN/Ill
and/or
any
of its
parents
or
affiliates or theirofficers oremployees, and any ofthe following Persons concerning
KankakeeCounty’s decisionto identify only one landfill location,specifically, and/or
one landfill operator, specifically, in its Solid Waste Management Plan, as amended.
a.
The County (including, but not limited to its
staff, employees, consultants,
and/or attorneys, no matter ifemployed
by or contracted with the County);
b.
The County Board
(including,
but
not
limited
to those
Members
listed
in
subparagraphs d through g, below);
c.
The County Regional Planning & Development Commission;
d.
Karl Kruse;
e.
Pam Lee;
f
Mike Quigley (during the time he
was a County Board Member and
during
the time he was not a County Board Member);
g.
George Washington, Jr.;
h.
Attorneys from the firms of Hinshaw & Culbertson and/or Swanson, Martin
& Bell;
i.
The Kankakee County Board Chairman; and
j.
Any member ofthe general public.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome. WMII objects to the document requests onthe basis that they seek informationrelating
to
the process
by
which the Kankakee County
Solid
Waste Management
Plan
was enacted and
amended.
The Board lacks the authority to review this legislative
process.
WMII further objects
to this document requestto the extent it seeks information relating to the statutory criteria, in which
case discovery is prohibited by Section 40.1(b) ofthe Act.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.
18:
Any and all
documents to
which you, WMII,
or the Persons
responsible for providing information for the
WMII’s Answers
to
This Document is Printed on
RecycledPaper
363395 v2
13
Petitioner Michael Watson’s Interrogatories, relied on or utilized in preparing those
Answers to Interrogatories.
OBJECTION:
WMII
objects
to
this
document
request
as
being
overly
broad
and
unduly
burdensome in requesting documents that WMII “relied on or utilized”.
WIN/Ill further objects this
document request to the extent
it seeks disclosure of information protected
by the attorney-client
privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
Dated:
April
10, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
\~ASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
BY~LZ
/
~
One ofIts At orneys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN &
HOUPT
161 North Clark
Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
This Documentis Printed on Recycled Paper
363395 v2
14

Back to top