BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ,.,LERK*S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
~
i.~2003
Complainant,
v.
)
No. PCB 96-96
pollutionSTATE
OFControl
ILLiNOIS
Board
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
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 of
Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
Respondents.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 16, 2003, we filed with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board Complainant’s Answer to
Respondents’ Third Affirmative Defense and Complainant’s Response
to Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time For Discovery
Schedule true and correct copies of which are attached and hereby
served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of Illinois
BY:
MITCHELL
i4i~2~’Z~~
L. CO EN
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., 20th Floor
Chicago, IllinQis 60601
(312) 814-5282
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SERVICE LIST
Nr. David O’Neill, Esq.
Attorney at Law
5487 North Milwaukee
Chicago, Illinois 60630
Nr. Chuck Gunnarson, Esq.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62702
Ms. Carol Sudman, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
600 S. Second Street, Suite 402
Springfield, Illinois 62704
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUN 1 6 2003
Complainant,
STATE OF IWNOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
v.
)
No. PCB
96-98
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
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 pwner and
Vice President of
Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
Respondents.
COMPLAINANT’S ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS’ THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel.
LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, submits its
Answer to Respondents’ third affirmative defense. Respondents
submitted an answer and three affirmative defenses to
complainant’s second amended complaint. On June 5, 2003, the
Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) struck Respondents’
first and second affirmative defenses.
The Board did not strike Respondents’ third affirmative
defense. The third affirmative defense is:
Under the doctrine of
la.ches
and equitable
estoppel, the complainants (sic) should not
be allowed to amend its complaint to include
respondents Edwin L. Frederick Jr, Jr. and
Richard J. Frederick, as respondents and
these respondents should not be required to
respond to said complaint.
THIS
DOCUMENT IS FILED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ANSWER: Complainant adopts and incorporates by reference its
argument and the legal citations cited in Complainant’s motion to
strike affirmative defenses. In addition to the incorporated
argument and legal citations, Complainant does not have
sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the
third affirmative defense. Complainant demands strict proof from
respondents with respect to the allegations in the third
affirmative defense.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ex
rel.
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of,the State of
Illinois
By:
MITCHELL L.
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street, ~ ~
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-5282
H: \common\Environmental\JOEL\Case Documents\Skokie Valley Asphalt\answer to aff-defense
wpd
THIS DOCUMENT IS FILED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S
O~FJCE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUN 1 ~ 2003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
Pollution Control Board
v.
)
No. PCB 96-98
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
)
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 of
Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
Respondents.
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE
TO
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR DISCOVERY
SCHEDULE
Comes now, the People of the State of Illinois, Complainant,
and responds to Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time for
Discovery Schedule as follows:
1. Respondents request in their motion an extension of time
for Respondents. Edwin L. Frederick and Richard J. Frederick to
answer Complainant’s pending discovery until 28 days after the
Board issues the order addressing the various motions on file.
2. Complainant has no objection to extending the time in
which Edwin and Richard Frederick answer pending discovery 28
days after the date of the Board order addressing the various
motions on file and would have agreed to same had counsel for
THIS DOCUMENT IS FILED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Respondents made the request to Complainant’s counsel.
3. The Board issued the relevant Order June 5,
2003.
4. Twenty-eight (28) days from June 5, 2003, is July 3,
2003.
5. Respondents also request in their Motion that the
discovery deadline be extended an additional 90 days from the
date of the Board’s Order, June 5, 2003.
6. Complainant objects to such an extension.
7. On March 28, 2003, Hearing Officer Carol Sudman issued an
Order that included the following discovery schedule:
All written discovery completed by June 20, 2003;
Depositions completed by August 20, 2003; and
Prehearing memoranda due September 22, 2003.
8. Even with Respondents’ written discovery deadline of July
3, 2003, Complainant sees no reason at this time why depositions
cannot be completed by August 20, 2003. That way, the case can
stay on schedule with the Hearing Officer’s Discovery Schedule.1
Contrary to their Affirmative Defense and Motion to
Dismiss claims previously filed, Respondents state in this Motion
that “the extension of time for the discovery schedule will not
in any way materially prejudice the Respondent’s ability to
proceed with this case.” Respondents’ Motion, paragraph 6 of
Argument.
THIS DOCUMENT IS FILED ON RECYCLED PAPER
WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that this Board grant
Respondents’ request for extension of time to answer pending
discovery 28 days from the date of the Board’s June 5, 2003,
Order, and order Respondents’ responses to Complainant’s
discovery requests due on or before July 3, 2003;
Complaint further requests that any and all other requests for
extension of time in Respondents’ Motion be denied.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
cx
rel.
JA1VIES E. RYAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
BY:___
Mitchell L. Cohen
Assistant Attorney General
MITCHELL L. COHEN
JOEL STERNSTEIN
Assistant Attorneys General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-5282/(312) 814-6986
I: \MLC\SkokieValley\RespMotExtTimeDisc .wpd
THIS DOCUMENT IS FILED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, MITCHELL L. COHEN, an Assistant Attorney General, certify
that on the 16th day of June, 2003, I caused to be served by
First Class Mail the foregoing Second Amended Complaint to the
parties named on. the attached service list, by depositing same in
postage prepaid envelopes with the United States Postal Service
located at 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601.
H:\cotflmOfl\EflvirOflmefltal\JOEL\Case Documexits\Skokie Valley Asphalt\Notice of F~1
-
answ a~ def.wpd
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER