BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB
99-134
)
PEABODY COAL COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
To:
Jane E. McBride
Environmental Bureau
Attorney General’s Office
500 S. Second St.
Springfield, IL 62706
Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk
100 West Randolph Street
James R. Thompson Center
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
RE
CE
JVE D
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUL
7 2003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
James R. Thompson Center
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
David Joest
Peabody Coal Company
1951 Barrett Court
P.O. Box 1990
Henderson, KY 42419-1990
• PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the~,~’.da~of July, 2003, we sent to the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board the original and four copies of Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Complainant’s Motion to File Reply for filing in the above entitled cause.
The undersigned certifies that true and correct copies of the above-described document
were served upon the above-identified individuals via U.S. mail, by enclosing the same in
envelopes properly addressed, with po~tagefully prepaid, and by depositing said envelopes in a
U.S. Post Office mail box, on the~,~.,ifday ofJuly, 2003.
Hedinger Law Office
2601 S. Fifth St.
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 523-2753 phone
(217) 523-4366 fax
THIS FILING IS SUBMITI’ED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECE!VEj~
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUL
7
2003
)
•
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
v.
)
PCB99-134
)
PEABODY COAL COMPANY, a Delaware
)
corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINANT’S
MOTION TO FILE REPLY
NOW COMES Respondent, PEABODY COAL COMPANY (hereinafter “PCC”),
through its undersigned attorneys, and moves this Board, through its Hearing Officer, for a three
day extension oftime, to and until July 10, 2003, within which to file its response to the “Motion
for Leave to Reply to Respondent’s Brief in Opposition to State’s Motion for Protective Order”
filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter “the State”) in this case. In support of this motion, PCC states
as follows:
1.
The State filed its motion for protective order on June 6, 2003. PCC was made to
file its response only six calendar days later, on June 12, 2003.
2.
Eight days thereafter (on June 20, 2003), Complainant submitted to PCC its
motion for leave to file a reply.
3.
By letter of the same date, June 20, 2003, PCC informed the Hearing Officer, with
carbon copy to counsel for the State, that because of the press of business PCC would require the
entire fourteen days allowed by the Board’s procedural rule 101.500(d), 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.500(d), to respond to the State’s motion.
4.
Pursuant to this Board’s procedural rule 101.500(d), 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.500(d), PCC’s response is due on or before Monday, July 7, 2003.
• 5.
Depositions of the State’s opinion witnesses in this case and document production
are occurring during the week ofJune 30, 2003; in addition, Friday of that week is the 4” ofJuly
holiday. In addition, during the preceding week one ofthe counsel for PCC was traveling and
involved in pre-scheduled personal activities, and was unavailable to attend to legal matters such
as drafting and submitting the response to this motion.
6..
As a consequence of the above, and most particularly due to the discovery
depositions taking up counsel’s time during the week of June 30, PCC is unable to draft and
submit its response to the motion to file a reply by Monday, July 7, 2003. PCC anticipates,
however, that it will be able to, and will, file the response on or before Thursday, July 10, 2003.
7.
PCC therefore requests this Board’s Hearing Officer to grant an extension to and
until July 10, 2003, within which for PCC to file its response to the motion ofthe State for leave
to file a reply. Counsel for PCC has conferred with counsel for the State concerning this request
for an extension, and counsel for the State has indicated that she has no position with respect to
this request.
8.
This request is being made in good faith, and not for any improper purpose.
Allowance of the motion will have no adverse effect on. anyone, because it pertains to a pending
discovery issue related to PCC’s discovery requests, which requests are already the subject ofthe
State’s motion. Denial of the motion would severely prejudice PCC by denying it the
opportunity to respond to the State’s motion.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, PEABODY COAL COMPANY, requests that this Board,
through its Hearing Officer, grant to Peabody Coal Company an extension to and until July 10,
2
2003, within which to file its response to the pending “Motion forLeave to Reply to
Respondent’s Brief in Opposition to State’s Motion for Protective Order.”
•
Respectfully submitted,
PEABODY COAL COMPANY
By its attorneys
U! C,
W. C. Blanton
BLACKWELL SANDERS PEP~RMARTIN LLP
Two Pershing Square, Suite 1000
2300 Main Street
Post Office Box 419777
Kansas City, Missouri 64141-6777
(816) 983-8000 (phone)
(816) 983-8080 (fax)
wblanton@blackwellsanders.com (e-mail)
/~e.He~inge/~4~
HEDINGER LAW OFFICE
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 523-2753 (phone)
(217) 523-4366 (fax)
hedinger@cityscape.net (e-mail)
3