BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
REC.EIIVED
Complainant,
)
CLERKtS OFFICE
)
PCB 96-98
JUL 1
~,
2003
V.
)
Enforcement
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
)
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.
)
RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINANT’S FIRST MOTION COMPEL
RESPONDENTSJ
TO
RESPOND
TO DISCOVERY
REQUESTS
The Respondents, Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Edwin L. Frederick and Richard J.
Frederick, by and through their attorney, David S. O’Neill, herein respond to the Complainant’s
first motion to compel respondents to respond to discoveiy requests and herein request that, the
Board deny the motion. In support of its position, the Respondent states as follows:
1.
The Respondents presently have pending before the Board a “Motion for Reconsideration
ofthe Board’s Order ofJune
5,
2003” that was filed with the Board on June 16, 2003.
2.
If the Respondents prevail in this Motion for Reconsideration, the Respondents Richard
J. Frederick and Edwin L. Frederick may be dismissed as Respondents and therefore
would not be required to either respond to discovery request or promulgate requests for
discovery.
3.
The Respondents presently have pending before the Board a “Motion for Extension of
Time for Discovery Schedule” that was filed with the Board on June 16, 2003.
4.
In the Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery Schedule, the Respondents have
moved the Board to “extend the period oftime for the Respondents Edwin L. Frederick
1
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...” (Motion at 3.)
5.
The Respondents “Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Order ofJune
5,
2003” is a
motion “concerning the dismissal ofthe Respondents” and will be affected by the
Board’s Order in response to the Respondents’ a “Motion for Extension of Time for
Discovery Schedule”.
6.
To require the Respondents to participate in discovery until the Board has been able to
issue an order that determines whether or not they are even parties to the complaint could
place an undue burden and hardship on persons that may not even be proper parties to the
Complaint.
7.
In light ofthese pending motions, the Respondents maintain that the July 3, 2003 cut off
date for completion ofwritten discovery established by the hearing officer is no longer a
workable date and the proper date for the completion of written discovery can only be
established after the Board has ruled on the above-mentioned motions.
8.
In its response to the Respondents’ “Motion for Extension ofTime for Discovery
Schedule” the Complainant’s stated that “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...”. (Resp at 1.) However, it now
files a first motion to compel Respondents to respond to discovery requests in direct
conflict with its previous statement.
9.
The Respondents point out for the Board that the Complainant has manipulated the Board
to extend discovery of this matter from the original discovery cutoff date ofOctober 20,
2000 to allow for a second discovery period that was completed on February 1, 2002 and
then again had the Board reopen discovery by a Hearing Officer Order February 19,
2003. However, now nearly three years after the discovery period for this case started,
the Complainant can not allow the Board a sufficient amount oftime to make a ruling on
a matter ofmajor significance in this case.
2
Wherefore, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Board deny the Complainant’s
first motion compel respondents to respond to discovery requests.
(~J~ ~v
David S. 6i~eill
~
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487
N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60634-1249
(773) 792-1333
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certif~’that I have served the attached Respondents’ Response to the
Complainant’s first motion to compel respondents to respond to discovery requests by hand
delivery on July 16, 2003 upon the following party:
Mitchell Cohen
Environmental Bureau
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
Assistant Attorney General
100 W. Randolph, 11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
David~O’Neill
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
14
+f~
day of
__________________
Notary P~bhc
,20
~3
NOTARY SEAL
‘OFFICIAL SEAL”
RITA LOMBARD!
Notary
Public, State of Illinois
My Commission
Expires
O9IO8IO~3
RECEIVED
CLERWS OFFICE
JUL 1 6 2003
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL B~~OFILUNOIS
Pollution Control
Board
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 Respondents’ Response to the Complainant’s first motion to compel
respondents to respond to discovery requests, a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
/
DavjØ. O’Nè~V
July 16, 2003
David S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
(773) 792-1333