OCT
12003
STATE OF IWNOIS
Pollution Control Board
TO: Heidi E. Hanson
H.E. Hanson, Esq. P.C.
4721 Franklin Avenue
Suite 1500
Western Springs, IL 60558-
1720
Mr. Bradley P. Hailoran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
JRTC, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL. 60601
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, October 1, 2003 filed with
the above named persons, copies of Complainant’s Response to Motion to
Quash Notices of Deposition, a copy of which is attached herewith and
served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
Stat of Illinois
BY:
PA LA BECKE WHEELER
Assistant Attorney General.
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., ~ Fir.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-1511
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECE~VED
CLERR5 OFFrc~
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
vs
-
QC FINISHERS, INC., an Illinois
corporation,
Respondent.
PCB No. 01-7
(Enforcement
-
Air)
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paula Becker Wheeler., an Assistant Attorney General in this
case, do certify that on this l~day of October, 2003, I caused to be
served the foregoing Notice of Filing Complainant’s Response to Motion
to Quash Notices of Deposition upon the persons named within by U.S.
Mail and fax to Heidi Hanson at the above address and in person to
Bradley P. Halioran at the above address.
PAULA BECKER WHEELER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CLERK’S OFFICE
OCT
o
12003
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
vs-
)
PCB No. 01-7
(Enforcement
-
Air)
QC FINISHERS, INC., an Illinois
corporation,
Respondent.
COMPLAINANT1S RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO QUASH NOTICES OF DEPOSITION
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the. State of Illinois, responds to
Respondent’s Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition as follows:
1. Respondent’s attorney is correct in stating that
Notices of Deposition were served instead of subpoenas.
Complainant’s attorney erroneously expected the deposition
schedules and notices to be worked out by the parties without the
necessity and expense of formal subpoenas. Although the formal
subpoenas were not used, Respondent is on notice as to what
witnesses are requested to be deposed and formal subpoenas can be
issued without undue prejudice to the Respondent.
2. The Notices of Deposition were served on July 8, 2003
instead of July 7, 2003 because Complainant’s attorney was out of
town the ten days prior to July 7, 2003 and the date for the
filing had been docketed incorrectly. Complainant’s attorney
contacted the Respondent’s attorney on July 7, 2003 about the mix
1
up and offered to fax the Notices but did not meet with success.
As discovery is not closed, the Respondent did not suffer any
prejudice for the filing being a day late.
3. The information requested in the Attachmeiits to the
Notices was discussed between the parties and narrowed to focus
on what would not be unduly burdensome for the specific witness.
The non-party witnesses were also spoken to about what would be.
acceptable as a response to the request.
4.
The Hearing Officer has the authority pursuant to
Section 101.622 to modify any requests for information,
and could
do so without denying a party
discovery in the form of
depositions.
Wherefore, Complainant asks that Respondent’s Motion be
denied or modified to allow subpoenas to issue to the witnesses
previously noticed up for deposition.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
By LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois,
By:
~
P~.ULABECKER WHEELER
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.
-
20th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-1511
E,\coomon\EflViroflmOfltal\BECKER WHEELER\QCFia\PCB\reply to ~iotioo
to qua~.wpd
2