ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 4, 2003
    GINA PATTERMANN,
    Complainant,
    v.
    BOUGHTON TRUCKING AND
    MATERIALS, INC.,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-187
    (Citizens Enforcement - Noise, Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
    On August 21, 2003, complainant Ms. Gina Patterman filed a motion for clarification of
    the Board’s August 7, 2003 order in this matter (Mot.). The respondents filed a response on
    August 29, 2003 (Resp.).
    On August 7, 2003, the Board granted Boughton’s motion for discovery sanctions in part
    and denied the motion in part. The Board barred Mr. Zak from testifying at hearing regarding
    Boughton’s noncompliance with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) regulations
    and possible modifications to Boughton’s facility. However, the Board did not bar any other
    witnesses, pleadings, or documents pertaining to the subject matter of Mr. Zak’s proposed
    testimony, nor did the Board award Boughton attorney fees.
    Ms. Patterman filed this citizens’ enforcement complaint against Boughton on June 17,
    1999, alleging noise and air pollution violations. The Boughton facility is a stone quarry that
    produces crushed stone, located at 11746 South Naperville Plainfield Road in Plainfield, Will
    County.
    MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
    Ms. Patterman asks the Board to clarify: (1) whether the Board will allow Ms. Patterman
    to choose a new witness to testify regarding Boughton’s violation of Agency regulations and
    possible modifications to Boughton’s facility; and (2) whether the Board will extend the
    deposition cut-off date to allow such substitute testimony. Mot. at 2.
    BOUGHTON’S RESPONSE
    In response, Boughton argues the Board’s August 7, 2003 order clearly bars Ms. Zak’s
    testimony and affirms that the discovery period is closed. Resp. at 1. Boughton reiterates that it
    has been seriously prejudiced by Ms. Patterman’s ongoing pattern of negligence and the Board
    should not allow Ms. Patterman to further abuse the discovery process by reopening discovery
    and allowing the parties to depose additional witnesses. Resp. at 3.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    In the Board’s August 7, 2003 order, the Board barred Mr. Zak from testifying at hearing,
    but denied Boughton’s motion to bar any other witnesses, pleadings, or documents pertaining to
    the subject matter of Mr. Zak’s proposed testimony. The Board also noted in the Board’s
    August 7, 2003 order that the all depositions had to be completed by May 2, 2003, and all
    dispositive motions filed on or before May 30, 2003. The Board will not reopen discovery.
    Consequently, the August 7, 2003 order effectually prevents Ms. Patterman from
    designating any new witnesses at this late date. Nothing in the Board’s August 7, 2003 order or
    any hearing officer order bars Ms. Patterman herself from testifying at hearing.
    CONCLUSION
    Ms. Patterman may not designate any new witnesses at this late date. To that end, the
    Board will not extend the deposition cut-off date previously agreed to by the parties and Hearing
    Officer Halloran.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on September 4, 2003, by a vote of 5-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top