SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., an Illinois
corporation, EDWIN L FREDERICK, JR.,
individually and as owner and President of Skokie
Valley Asphalt Co., Inc., and RICHARD J.
FREDERICK, individually and as owner and Vice
President ofSkokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
The Respondents, SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., an Illinois corporation, EDWIN
L FREDERICK, JR., individually and as owner and President ofSkokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
and RICHARD J. FREDERICK, individually and as owner and Vice President ofSkokie Valley
Asphalt Co., Inc., by and through their attorney, David S. O’Neill, herein moves the Board for
extension oftime ofthe period for discovery both for Edwin L. Frederick and Richard J.
Frederick to respondto Complainant’s request for production, interrogatories and request for
admission offacts and the cutoff date for discovery established by the hearing officer. In
support of its position, the Respondent states as follows:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.
By a hearing officer order dated February 19, 2003, the hearing officer established a new
discovery schedule for this matter that stated in relevant part that all written discovery in
this matter was to be completed within ninety days after the Board ruling on the motion
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECE~VED
CLERK’S.
~
)
JUN
92003
STATE OF ILLINOiS
)
PCB 96-98
Pollution Control
Board
)
v.
)
Enforcement
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
for summary judgment.
2.
On April 18, 2003, the Complainant’s filed a Motion to Dismiss the Respondents’
Affirmative Defense
3.
On April 30, 2003, the Respondents filed a Response to Complainant’s Motion to Strike
orDismiss Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
4.
On May 7, 2003, the Complainants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply and its Reply
to Respondents’ Response to Complainant’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss Respon4ents’
Motion to Dismiss.
5.
On April 23, 2003, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the Respondents Edwin L.
Frederick and Richard J. Frederick.
6.
On May 7, 2003, the Complainant filed a Motion to Strike Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss Edwin L. Frederick and Richard J. Frederick, or, in the Alternative
Complainant’s Response to and Request to Deny Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss edwin
L. Frederick and Richard J. Frederick.
7.
To date, the Board has not ruled on any of these Motions.
8.
On May 7, 2003, the Complainants served on the Respondents Edwin L. Frederick ~nd
Richard J. Frederick First Sets ofInterrogatories, First Requests for Production of
Documents, Objects, and Tangible Things and First requests for Admission ofFacts.
9.
The Complainant requested that the Respondents answer the discovery within twenty-
eight days from the date ofservice.
10.
Because service to Respondents was by mail, the effective date of service is four days
after mailing and consequently, the answers to discovery would be due on June 9, 2p03.
ARGUMENT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
1.
In accordance with Section 101.522 ofthe Board’s Procedural Rules, the Board, for good
cause shown on a motion, may extend the time for any act which is required to be dne
within a limited period.
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.522).
2.
In this matter, the Respondents may be dismissed by the Board in the Board’s order to be
2
prepared in response to the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or in the other Board orders
still pending in response to other motions before the Board.
3.
If the Respondents are dismissed, the Respondents will not be required to respond to the
Complainant’s discovery requests.
4.
Depending on the decisions in the Board’s orders in response to the pending motions, the
content ofthe Respondents’ request for discovery may be altered or it may be possible
that the Respondents will not require any discovery from the Complainant.
5.
The compliance with the existing deadline to answer the Complainant’s discovery and the
cut-off date for discovery would result in a considerable cost and effort to the
Respondents that may not be required ofthem. Further, the Respondents may not be fully
aware ofthe issues it may need to address in this matter, and therefore, may not know
what information to request in discovery until the orders in response to the pending
motions have been issued.
6.
The extension oftime for the discovery schedule will not in any way materially prejudice
the Respondent’s ability to proceed with this case.
Whereby, the Respondents respectfully request this Board to find that good cause has
been shown in this motion, and as a result, extend the period of time for the Respondents Edwin
L. Frederick and Richard J. Frederick to answer the Complainant’s pending discovery until
twenty-eight (28) days after the Board issues orders to address all motions concerning the
dismissal of the Respondents or the appropriateness of the discovery schedule and extend the
deadline for the completion ofdiscovery until ninety (90) days after the Board issues orders to
address all motions concerning the dismissal ofthe Respondents or the appropriateness ofthe
discovery schedule.
/7 /
~J/J ~/1J/
Davi~lS.O’I’.IeilI
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487
N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60634-1249
Phone:(773) 792-1333
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attachedRespondent’s Motion for
Extension ofTime for Discovery Schedule by hand delivery on June 9, 2003 upon the following
party:
Mitchell Cohen
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
188 W. Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Da~S. O’Neill
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
day of ~~~1)-4k.._L..
,
20 0
‘I
Notar~7i~u)I4c
OFFICIAL SEAL’
RITA LOMBARDI
N~t~ryPublic,
State of litnois
~OmmissionExpires 09/08/03
CLERR’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDPollutj
STATE
JUN
0~ConOP
ILLINOIS
9~
troi
“
Board
03
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
V.
)
Enforcement
)
)
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO.,
)
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution
Control Board the Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery Schedule
,
a copy
ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
Da~iUS. O’Neill
June 9, 2003
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333