1. ~ECEW~DCLEI~K’SOFFI~JU6Ir 1• 42004
      1. STATE OF ILLINOISPollution Control Board
    1. • RECE~V~
  2. JUN 14 2004
      1. STATE OF ILLINOIS
      2. ~WER:’,
      3. CERTIFICATE OF’ SERVICE
      4. R. Michael MoDerniont, Mark A. LaRose and RobertPruim.
      5. date.these’ interrogatories were served upon Respondent;
      6. documents consulted or reviewed inorder to answer the above interrogatories.
      7. tayof
~ECEW~D
CLEI~K’SOFFI~
JU6Ir
1• 42004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PCB No. 03-191
(Enforcement-Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.
an Illinois corporation, and
the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
municipal corporation,
-
Respondents.
to: Mr. Mark La Rose
Mr. Bradley P. Halloran
La Rose &Bosco
Hearing Officer
200 N. La Salle Street,
IPCB
Chicago, IL 60601
Hand Delivery
Mr. Charles Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
Rockford IL 61105-1389
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, Jul~14, 2004, filed
with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, Complainant’s First Motion to, Compel Respondent Community
Landfill Company, Inc., a copy of which is attached and herewith
served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF.THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN
Attor ey Gener 1 of. the
S te of Illi ois.
BY: _______________________
CR~S TOPHER GRANT
As~stant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., 2O~Flr.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-5388
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
#2810
•
RECE~V~
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICI~

Back to top

JUN 14 2004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
I
)
‘
Pollution Control Board
vs.
)
PCBN0. 03-191
(Enforcement-Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,
),
an Illinois corporation, and
)
the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
)
municipal corporation,
Respondents.
COMPLAINANT’S
FIR~TMOTION~TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT COMMUNITY
‘LANDFILL COMPANY, ‘INC. TO FULLY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, pursuant to
35 Ill. Adm. Code Sections 101.100(b), 101.616, 101.620, and
101.800, and Supreme Court Rules 201, 213,’ and 214, moves the,
Hearing Officer to compel Respondent COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
INC. (“CLC”) to fully comply with Complainant’s writt’en discovery,
requests. In support thereof, Complainant states,, as follows:
1. On January’23, 2004, Complainant served it’s First Set
of Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents
upon Respondent CLC, by first class mail to counsel for
Respondent. A copy ‘of Complainant’s discovery request is
attached hereto as’ Exhibit ‘A’.
,
2. On May13, 2004, Hearing Officer Halloran directed both
Respondents to respond to Complainant’s written discovery on or
before June 1, 2004.
‘
‘
1
3. Prior to the June 1, 2004. deadline, counsel for.
Respondent CLC consulted with Complainant to request an extension
of ~timè
to
Respond. Pursuant to agreement, Respondent CLC
produced responses to Complainant’s written discovery on June 14,
2004. Complainant’s responses are attached hereto as Exhibit
‘B’.
.
-
RESPONDENT FAILS TO ADEQUATELY’ RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
4. Complainant’s Interrogatory No. 1, and Respondent’~
answer thereto, are as follows:
1. Identify each person who supplied information for
answers to these interrogatories and further state
for- which interrogatory each person so supplied
information.
Answer:
.
.
~espondent CLC objects to this interrogatory as no
Board rule or Illinois Supreme Court rule requires this
information to be provided, and
since
it is not
relevant or calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant evidence. Subject to and without waiving
these objections, the information provided in these
interroga tories was supplied by CLC.
5. Respondent’s objection is without merit.
.
Section
101.616 of the Board Procedural Rules, 35 Ill. -Adrñ. Code 101.616
provides in part:
.
.‘ .
..
a) All relevant information and information calculated to
lead to relevant information
*_ * .
is
*
discoverable....
.e) Unless a claim of privilege is asserted, it is not a
ground for objection that the testimony of a deponent
or person interrogated will not be admissible at
hearing. If the information sought is reasonable
2
calculated to lead to relevant information.
Supreme Court Rule 201. provides, in part:
RULE 201. General Discovery
*,. *
Provisions
*
(b) Scope of Discovery
(1) Full Disclosure Required.
‘
Except as provided in these
rules, a party may obtain by .discovery full disclosure
regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action including
. . .
the
identity and location of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts emphasis added
.
6. Interrogatory No. 1 seeks to identify. those who
provided the specific. information contained each ‘response, and
thus seeks disclosure of those persons with knowledge of these
relevant facts. Respondent’s answer that “CLC” a corporation
provided.the answers is clearly’ non-responsive and inaccurate.
Respondent should be compelled to provide the names, addresses,
and phone numbers of the natural person or persons who provided
the information.
.
RESPONDENT HAS ‘FAILED
TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES
No. 5(4), 7, 8, AND DOCUMENT ‘REQUEST NO. 2
7. Respondent objeôts to,
and has failed to answer,
Interrogatories No. 5 subpart 4, 7, and 8, and has
also failed
to ‘provide documents responsive to “Document Request No. 2.
Respondent.’objects on the basis of relevance. ‘Respondent’s’
objection has no merit, since all of. the requested information is
properly discoverable.
..
‘ .
8. The disputed request.s provide, in pertinent part:
‘
3
Interrogatory No. 5
For all financial assurance provided or maintained by
Respondent CLC for’the Moi~ris Community Landfill from
Janua’ry 1, 2000 until the present, state:’
*‘
.*
*
(4) The fee(s) paid by Respondent CLC for financial
assurance arranged for and/or maintained.
Interrogatory
No. 7
‘
‘
.
‘
‘
‘
For each year from 2000 until the present, state the amount
paid by Respondent CLC to the City of Morris for:
a.’ ‘Lease payments;
‘
‘
‘ “
‘
b.
-
Royalty payments
‘
c. Reimbursement
‘of surety bond expenses incurred.’by
the City of.Morris.
‘ ‘
Interrogatory No. 8
‘ . ‘
‘ ‘
‘ .‘
“
For each year from 2000 until the present, state the amount
paid by CLC as bond premium for the Frontier’Bonds, as
herein defined
Document Reguest
No.2
All correspondence and .any and all
documents relating to correspondence between Respondent CLC
and any person which relate to proposals, quotes, cOsts, or
‘applications for financial, assurance for the Morris
Community Landfill, from 1999 until the present.’
9 All of the above requests are either relevant, or
likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information
Complainant has ‘alleged that the Respondents failed to’ meet
financial aCsurance requirements for cibsure-post closure care at
the Morris Community Landfill, by failing to provide more than
$17;000, 000 ‘of financial assurance. Respondent, CLC’s. faili.ire to’
obtain, and fund, appropriate financial assurance’ relates
directly to the alleged violation Moreover, financial
assurance, whether through bonds, letters of credit, or other
4
acceptable means, costs money. The difference between the, amount
actually expended and the cost of genuine financial assurance is
evidence of the economic benefit of noncompliance. All of
Complainant’s inquiries
regarding financial assurance, including
costs, monies expended,
and quotes obtained, are highly relevant.,
The Respondent
should be compelled to provide complete and
accurate’ answers to these interrogatories,
‘.and compelled to
produce any and all responsive documents.
10. Interrogatory subparts 7(a) & (b) are also’ relevant to
this matter.
,
Re’spo~identsare owners City of Morri~ and
operators CLC of’the Morris Community Landfill. Complainant
has alleged that they are jointly liable for the violations. In
its Answer, Respondent City of Morris denies responsibility for
landfill operationC. The precise nature of the relationship
between the two Respondents is,
important for the purpose of
‘allocating responsibility
for the alleged violations.’
Whether
lease or royalty payments were actually paid by Respondent CLC is
relevant to the issue of the two’
parties’ relative involvement in
the violations.
‘
In addition, t,he amount received by the City of
Morris during
the
period of alleged violation
could be
a factor
in calculating, the economic benefit of noncompliance to the City.
Respondent CLC should be required to answer these
,
interrogatories.
5
RESPONDENT CLC
‘HAS
FAILED TO FULLY RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY No., 6
11. Complainant’s Interrogatory No. 6, and Respondent’s
answer thereto, are as follows:
Interrogatory No.6
‘
Did any person, excepting’ Respondent
CLC, arrange for
and/or maintain financial assurance,
as defined herein,
related to permits 2000-,155-LFM and 20.00.-156-LFM.?
If so:
1. Identify the amount .and type of financial
assurance arranged for and/or maintained;
‘2.. State the dates that the financial ‘assurance became
effective and the, dates on which ‘the ‘financial
aSsurance was discontinued or cancelled;
3. .State the amount and type of financial assurance in
,,place at the present ‘i.e the date these
interrogatories were served upon Respondent;
4. State the fee(s)’ paid by Respondent CLC for
financial” assurance arranged for and/or maintained
by others.
,
‘
,
‘ANSWER:
Yes. City of Morris, Morris City Council, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Joyce Munie,
John
Taylor, Christine Roque,’ Frontier Insurance, Emerald
Insurance Agency.
‘
‘
12. Respondent has answered Complainant’s specific, four.
part interrogatory with nothing but a list of names..
,
It does not
explain how, why or when,
for example, the Illinois EPA,provided
financial assurance for ,the Morris Community Landfill.
It does
not state whether any’ named are continuing to maintain financial
assurance.
.
This response is
totally unresponsive and
unacceptable. Respondent must be required to provide complete
6
and accurate information inresponseto this Interrogatory.
WHEREFORE, Complainant requests the following relief from
the Hearing Officer:
,
1.
,
A finding that Respondent, COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
INC. has failed to fully comply with Complainant’s written
discovery requests;
‘ ‘ ‘
‘ ‘ - ‘
.
‘ ‘
2. An Order requiring Respondent to fully and completely
respond. to Complainant’s Interrogatoriesi, 5(4), 6, 7, 8, and
Document Request Number 2; and
, .
‘
‘
3. Such other relief that the Hearing Officer deems
appropriate.
‘ .
‘
‘
,
‘
F
RESPEcTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PEOPLE OF THE” STATE OF ILLINOIS
by ‘LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental nforcement/Asbestos’
I~iti
‘~
tion Div sion
BY:
_______________________
~~ISTOPHER
GRANT
kn,~rironmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street,
‘
20th
Floor
Chicago, ‘IL 60601
(312) 814-5388
-
7
BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
vs..
‘
)
~‘
PCBNo. 03-191’
)
(Enforcement-Land)
COM1vflJ~’UTYLANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,’.)
an Illinois corporation, and
,
the
CITY OF
MORRIS, an illinois
)
-
municipal corporation,
,
‘
)
)
Respondents.
“
‘)
-
COMPLAINANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATOfflES
AND REOUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Complainant, PEOPLE OF T~E STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General ofthe State ofIllinois, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 213 and 214, and35
Ill.’ Adm. Code 101.616, serves Respondent, COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY (“CLC”),.’
the following First Set ofInterrogato.ries and Request for Production of Documents.
The Complainant requests that Respondent CLC file a sworn answer or objection to each
interrogatory within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof. Documents requested shall be
produced for inspection and copying in the offices ofthe Environmental Bur~au,188 West
Randolph Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601, or at such other place as the parties may
agree, within 28. days ofservice hereof
-
If any ofthe following interrogatories cannotbe answered in full, please so state, and
answer to the fullest extent possible.
‘
Instructions
1.
Claims of Privilege.
Ifthe Respondent claims that any information requested in
1
these interrogatories or any document covered by this request is not subject to discovery
on grounds ofany privilege, it ~hall supply with respect to each such item:
a.
The date ofthe information or document;
b~
The type or nature of the information or document, e.g., letter or
conversation;
c.
The person orpersons who prepared the information ordocument and his,’
her, or their title(s);
.
,
-
d.
‘The name and job title ofeach person to whom the document was shown;
e.
The present location ‘and custodian ofthe document;
f.
The basis on which the Respondent claim the privilege;
g.
,
A description ofthe information or the contents of the document sufficient
to support the claim ofprivilege; and.
h.
The paragraph
of these interrogatories
or request for documents to which
‘the document relates.
‘
.
-‘
2.
Interrogatories.
‘
,
I
- . ‘
a.
In answering each,interrogatory, identify each document, persoi~,
-
communication or meeting which relates to; corroborates, or in any way
forms the basis for
the answer given.
.
‘
‘
-
b.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
-213, Respondent is,requested to serve
upon Complainant corrected, supplemented or augmented answers hereto,
document or other’ forms of information from whatever source, which
‘arguably tends to show that Respondent’s prior answers are, might be,
were or might
have been in
a sense incorrect, incomplete, potentially
‘misleading or less than fulls’ responsive or truthful.’
c.
‘
If
you encounter any ambiguity in construing any interrogatory or any
‘definition or instruction pertaining to any interrogatory, set forth the matter
d~emed”ambiguoüs”andthe construction chosen or
used in responding to
the interrogatory.
.,
,
“
‘ ‘
‘
‘
.‘
‘ -
d.
,
Ifyou
lack information necessaiy to answer any interrogatory completely,
state the following:
‘:
i.
.
The responsive
information currently available;’
‘
ii.
The responsive information currently unavailable;
iii.
Efforts you have made and intend to make to obtain the
information currently available; and~
iv. .When you expect to receive the currently unavailable information.
2
bè’~
given ifpossible. However, if the exact date
cannot be determined due
to
absence or inadequacy ofrecords, the best estimate should be given and
labeled as such.
‘
3.
‘Production of Documents.
‘
‘
a.
Ifanyrequested document was in
Respondent’s possession or subject to
Respondent’s control, but is not now in Respondent’s control, or is no
longer in existence, as to each such document state the following:
i.
‘
Whether the document:
‘A.
Is missing or lost,
B.
Has been destroye~d,
-
I
C.
Has been transferred to others, or
D.
Has been otherwise disposed of;
ii.
,
The circumstances surrounding the d~cument’s disposition;
iii.
Any
authorization for the disposition; and
iv, If known, the present location
and
cu~todianof the document.
b.,
Each document request shall be construed to inólude any document
responsive to the request which is later discovered‘by Respondent.
Definitions
,
1.
‘
As used herein, ‘financial assurance’ refers to the requirement of
financial
-
assurance for closure and post-closure costs, as a condition to Illinois EPA permits
No 2000-155-LFM and
2000-l56-LFM. Financial assurance means one or more of the
following
‘
‘
‘ ‘
a)
Atrust fund
‘‘
“
‘
‘
,
‘
‘
b) A surety bond guaranteeing payment
,
c) ‘A ‘surety bond guaranteeing performance
,
d) Aletterofcredit
‘
‘~‘ ‘
‘
e) Closure insurance
‘
,
f~
Self-insurance meeting the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.715;
g) Local government financial test meeting
the
requirements of
35
Ill. Adm. Code
811.716;
‘ .‘
‘
‘ ‘‘ ‘
h) Local government guarantee meeting the requirements of 35111. Adm. Code 811.717;
1)
Corporate financial test meeting the tequirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.719;
j) Corporate guarantee meeting the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.720.
3
2.
‘As used herein, Permit 2000-155-LFM,
means th ermit
issued by illinois EP~A
on
August
4, 2000 to the City of
Morris and
Community Landfill Company, approving and
regulating development and
operation of Parcel A of the Morris CommunityLandfill.
3.
As used herein~‘Permit 2000-1 56-LFM,
means
the
permit
issued by Illinois EPA
on
August
4, 2000 to the City of
Morris
and
Community Landfill Company, approving and
‘regulating development and closure
of Parcel B ofthe Morris
Community
Landfill.
4.
As used herein, “person” means ‘any individual, partnership, co-partnership,
firm,
company, corporation, association, joint stock company,
trust,
estate, or any other legal entity or
theirlegal representative, agent or
assigns.
5.
,,
When
used
in reference to a natural
and/or corporate person herein, to “identify”
means to state
his
or her full’narne, present
and last
known address, and present or last known
business affiliation. When used in
reference to a document herein, to “identify” means to state
its date, author, addresser, addressee,
type
(e.g., letter, memorandum, invoice, map),
or some
other
means
of identification,
and
its present location
and custodian. Ifthe
document was, but no
longer is, in a Respondent’s possession or control, state the disp6sition made of it
and its present
location and custodian.
‘
I
,
‘
6.
As used herein,
“document”.means the original and any non-identical copy of any
communication or other transmission of information that has been reduced by
any means into
tangible form or medium, ind1udin~written, electronic, magnetic or photographic.
7.
“Relating to”
or “related to” shall mean anything which directly or indirectly
concerns, consists of, pertains to,, reflects, evidences, mentions, describes, sets forth, constitutes,
contains, shows, underlies, supports, refers to in
any way, is or was used in the
preparation of,
is
appended to, is legally, logically or factually
connected with, proves, disproves, or tends to prove
or disprove the stated. matter.
‘
‘
‘,
‘
8.
As used herein, “present” means the. time at which
this
First Set of
Interrogatories
isserved.
‘
‘
,.
‘
‘
9.
As used herein, “financial institution” means
any bank,
savings and
loan
company, institution~1lender, commercial credit provider, credit, union, insurance company,
surety company, trust ôonipany, or other related institution.
‘
‘
10.
,
As used herein,’“Frontier Bonds” mOans surety bonds No 158466, 91507, and
158465, issued by Frontier Insurance Company, as surety in favor of Illinois EPA.
‘
4
meaning,
unless such
terms
are defined in the Act or the regulations promulgated thereui~der,in.
‘
which case the appropriate or regulatory definitions shall apply.
.
,
INTERROGATOIUES
‘ . ‘
Int~rrog~itoiYNQJ.
.
,
I
,
Identify eachperson who supplied infonnation for answers to these interrogatories
and further state for which interrogatories each person so identified,supplied information;
~i~i
Interrogatory,~.2.
‘
‘ . ‘
.
Identify each and every fact witness who. may
be called by Respondent CLC as a witness
in any hearing in
this matter, and state his or her area of knowledge.
,
ANS~B~
, ,
~terro~gatoiyNo..~.
‘
‘
.
‘
‘
Identify each and every opinion witness who may
be called by Respondent CLC as a witness nt
any hearing in this matter, and state:
a) his or her area ofknowledge;
‘ ‘
‘
.
b) the subj ect matter on which the opinion witness
will testify;
,
c) the conclusions, and opinions of the opinion witness and the
bases therefore;
d) the qualificatioi~sof
the opinion witness.
- ‘ ..
AN~i
,
‘‘
~te~og~to~ No.4’
‘
‘
‘
.
‘
.
Identify all officers, employees, or agents ofRespondent CLC who negotiated, solicited
5
or arranged for financial assurance pursuant to the requirements of Permits No.,2000-l55-LFM~””~~’
and
2000-156-LFM.
.
.
. “ .
. ‘‘
-
~g~toiNQ~5
‘I’,
For all financial assurance provided or maintained by Respondent CLC
for the Mon-is
Community Landfill
from
January 1,
2000 until the present, state:
1. The amount and
type
of
fmancial
assurance afranged for and/or maintained;
2. The dates that the financial assurancObecame effective and the dates on which
the financial assurance was discontinued or cancelled;
‘
‘
3. The amount and type
of financial assurance in place at
the
present i.e the date
these interrogatories
were served upon Respondent;
,,
‘
4. The fee(s) paid by Respondent CLC for financial assurance arranged
for
and/or maintained.
,
‘
.
‘
.‘
‘ .‘
~WER:’,
In~iatoiY~NO.~
‘ ‘
,.
Did a~y person, excepting Respondent CLC, arrange for and/or maintain
financial
assurance, as defined herein, related to permits 2000-155-LFM and 2000-156-LFM.?
Ifso:
I
‘
‘
1. Identify
th~amount and
type of financial assurance aiTanged for and/or maintained;
2. State the dates thatthe financial assurance became effective and th~dates on which
the financial assurance was discontinued or cancelled;
. ‘
3. State the amount and
type
o.f financial assurattce in place at the present i.e the date
these interrogatories were served uponRespondent;
‘
4. State the fee(s) paid by Respondent CLC for financial assurance arranged for
and/or maintained by others.
‘
‘
‘
6
InterrogatOrYJ’~10.7
For each year from 2000 until
the present, state the amount
paid
by Respondent CLC to
the City
ofMorris for:
,
.
,
‘
a. Lease payments;
‘
.
b. Royalty payments
‘‘
c. Reimbursement of surety bond expenses incurred by the City of Morris.
For each year from 2000 until the present, state the amount paid by CLC as bond
premium for the Frontier Bonds, as herein defined.
‘
,
I
ANSWER:
7
REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMJ~fN’IS
1.
Any
and all documents relating to answers’to the above
interrogatories, and
all
documents identified in the course of
answering
the above
interrogatories, and any and
all
documents consulted or
reviewed in
order to answer the above interrogatories.
2.
-
All colTespOndence and any and all documents
relating to correspondence
between Respondent CLC and
any person which relate to proposals, quotes, costs, ‘or
applications for financial assurance for
the Morris Community Landfill, from 1999 until the
present.
‘‘
‘
.
,,
.
‘ , , ‘
,
I
3,
Any and all documents which Respondent will enter into evidence orotherwise
use at hearing
in this matter.
‘
Respectfully Submitted
BY:flt~’
~
Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney’ General
Environmental Bureau
.188 W. Randolph St., 20~Fir;
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-5388
8
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTI~NCONTR~LBOAR)
‘
-
PEOPLE OF’
THE STATE OF ILLil’~OIS,
,‘
)
)
Complainant,
.
.
.
)
‘
)
vs.
,
‘
)
‘
PCBNo.03-191
)
(Enforcement-Land)
COMM(JNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
fl~C.,
)
an Illinois corporation, and
)
‘
the CITY
OF
MORRIS, an
Illinois
‘.
)
municipal corporation,
)
‘
)
Respondents.
‘
)
‘
I
CERTIFICATE OF’ SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER
GRANT, an attorney, do certify that I caused to be
served
this 23d
day of January, 2004, the foregoing Interrogatories and
Request for the Productioh of Documents
upon the persons listed below, by
placing same in an envelope hearing sufficient postage with the
United States Postal Service located at 100
W. Rand~i, ~lrica~o flhinois.(
L~~
~
I
CTRISTOPHER GRANT
~ i~i~e~t~
‘
“~‘~“~““
~C~pytoT’”””~’.”’
MarkA
LaRose, Clanissa Grayson’
,
Mr. Charles Heiston
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
‘
‘
Hinshaw & Culbertson
734 N. Wells Street
‘
100 Park Street
‘,
‘
Chicago Illinois 60610
‘
Rockford, Illinois 61105
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Complainant,
‘
)
)
v.
‘
‘
,
)
PCBNo.03-191
)
‘
(Enforcement)
COMMXJNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
)
INC
an’Illinois Corporation, and the
)
‘
.
CITY
OF MORRIS,
an Illinois
‘
)
municipal corporation,
. ‘ ‘
, )‘
‘ ‘
)
Respondents..
‘
‘
)
.‘
‘~
,
RESPONDENT COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY’S.
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT’S
FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATO1UES AND
REQUEST
FOR ThE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
‘
Respondent, COMMLNITY LANDFILL COMPANY
(CLC), by
its attorneys Mark A.
LaRose
and Clarissa
C.
Grayson ofLaRose
& Bosco, Ltd. pursuant to
IllinOis
Supreme
Court’
Rule
213
and
214,
and 35111. Adrn.
Code 101.616, serves Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLiNOIS, thefollowing Response totheComplainant’s First Setofinterrogatories
and
Request for
the Production ofDocuments.
.,
.
RESPONSE TO
INTERROGATOR1ES
1.
‘
Identify
each person who supplied
information
for answers to these interrogatories
and
further state for which interrogatories each person so identified supplied information.’
ANSWER:
.
‘
‘
. ,
Respondent CLC objects to
this
interrogatory as
no Board
nile
or
Illinois
Supreme Court
rule requires
this
information to be provided,
and
since
it is not relevant or calculated to’ lead to
the discovery of
relevant
evidence. Subject to
and without waiving these objections, the
1
information provided in these interrogatories was supplied by CLC.
2.
Identify
each
and
every
fact
witness
who maybe called by Respondent CLC as a
witness in
any hearing in. this
matter, and state
his
orher area ofknowledge.
ANSWER:
.
‘
‘
.
‘
,
-~I
Although
Respondent CLC has not yet
identifed all individuals
it expects to
call
as
witnesses at any hearing, it expects to call current IEPA employees Joyce Miinie
and
Blake
Harris; former TEPA employee John Taylor;
and any
witnesses named by Complainant.
RespondentCLC
will
supplement
this
response as required.
.
3.
.
Identify
each and every opinion
witness
who maybe called by Respondent CLC
as a witness at
any
hearing in.
this
matter,
and
state:
‘
a)
his
or her area ofknowledge;
b) the subject matter on which the opinion witness
will
testif~r,
I
c) the conclusions
and opinions
of the
opinionwitness
and
the bases therefore;
d) the qualifications of.the opinion witness.
,
‘“
,
-
‘
ANSWER:
Respondent CLC has not yet identified
all.opini~nwitnesses it expects to call
as’
witnesses in
any
hearing.
Respondent CLC will supplement
this response as required.
2
4.
.
Identify all officers, employees, or agents ofRespondent CLC. who negotiated,
solicited or arranged for
financial assurance
pursuant to the requirement of
Permits
No. 2000-
‘155-LFM
and
2000-156-LFM.
. ‘
‘
‘
‘ANSWER:
‘
.
‘ ‘ ‘
‘ .
‘ ‘
‘
‘ ‘
R. Michael MoDerniont, Mark A. LaRose and RobertPruim.
5.
.
For all
financial
assurance provided or maintained byRespondent CLC for the
Morris
Coimnunity Landfll
from January 1, 2000
until
the present, state:
.
1) The
amount and type
offinancial assurance arranged for
and/or
maintained;
2) The dates that the
financial
assurance became effective
and
the dates onwhich
the financial assurance was discontinued or cancelled;
‘‘
3) The
amount and type
of
financial
assurance inplace at the present i.e. the date
these interrogatories were served upon Respondent~
‘ ‘
. ‘
4) The fee(s) paid by Respondent CLC for financial
assurance
arranged for
and/or
maintained.
.
.
.
‘
.
‘
ANSWER:
‘ ‘
I
1)
FrontierBondNos:
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
158465
3lMay2000-31May2005
‘$10,081,630.00
158466
31 May2000-31 May2005
5,906,016.00
.
.91507
.
14June1996-l4June2005
. .
:1,439,720.00
“.
‘
2)
See above for effective dates.
‘
3)
See above for
type
of
financial assurance.
‘
4)
-Respondent CLC objects
subpart
(4) of
this
interrogatory
as it is not relevant or calculated
,to lead to the discovery ofevidence relávant to the,subject matter of
this
complaint.
6.
-
Did any person, excepting Respondent CLC,
arrange
for
and/or maintain financial
assurance, as defined herein, related to permits 2000.-155-LFM
and
2’000-156-LFM?
Ifso:
.
‘
I~
1)
Identify
the
amount and type
of
financial assurance
arranged for and/or,
maintained;
‘
.
‘ ..
‘
.
2) State the dates that the
flnancial.assi.irance
became effective
and
the dates on
which the
financial
assurance
was
‘discontinued or cancelled-;
3) State the
amount and type
of
financial
assurance
in. place at the present Le. the
date.these’ interrogatories were served upon Respondent;
4) State the fee(s) paidbyRespondent CLC forfinancial
assurance
arranged for
and/or
maintained
by others.
‘
ANSWER:
‘
. “‘‘
-
Yes.
City
ofMorris,
Morris
City ‘Council, ilinois Environmental Protection
‘Agency, John Kim, Joyce Munie, John Taylor,‘Christine Roque, Frontier Insurance,
Emerald Insurance Agency.
.
‘.
‘
‘
7’.
For’ each
year from
2000
until
the present, state the
amount paid
by Respondent
CLC to the
City
of
Morris
for:
,
‘ ‘
a. Lease payments;
‘.
b. Royalty payments;
‘
‘
‘
-
.
c. Reimbursement of
surety
bond
expenses incurred
by the ‘City of
Morris.’
ANSWER:
4
Respondents object to
this interrogatoryas it is not relevant
or calculated to lead to the
discovery ofevidence relevant
to the subject matter of
this complaint.
8.
For each year
from
2000
until
the present, state the
amount
paid by CLC as bond
premium
for the FrontierBonds, as herein
defined.
-
ANSWER:
‘
‘
Respondents object to,
this
interrogatory as itis not relevant or calculated‘to lead to the
discovery ofevidencerelevant to the subject matter of
this
complaint.
‘
.
BEQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
1.
Any and all ‘documents relating to
answers to the above interrogatories,
and
all
documents identified in the course of
answering
the above interrogatories,
and any and all’
documents consulted or reviewed inorder to answer the above interrogatories.
ANSWER:
‘
‘
.
See attached
documentsproduced pursuant
to
Complainant’s
Request for Production of
Documents.
‘.
‘
.
-
‘
2.
All correspondence
and any and
all documents relating to correspondence
between’Respondent CLC
and any
person which relate to proposals, quotes, costs, or
applications for financial assurance for the Morris
Community Landfill, from
1999 until the
present.
‘‘
‘
.
‘
-
.
‘
.
ANSWER:
‘
‘ ‘
‘
5
‘‘
Respondent CLC objects to
this
interrogatory as it is not relevant or
calculated to
lead.to
the discovery of evidence relevant to the subject matter of
this
complaint.
‘
3.
Any an,d
all documents which Respondentwill
enter
into evidence or
otherwise
use at
bearing in
this
matter.
.
‘ ‘
‘
‘
1
‘
ANSWER:
‘ ‘. .
‘
‘.
‘
‘
Respondent CLC,does not, at
this time,
have a complete list of documents to be used at
hearing
and
will supplement
this
production request as iequired.
-
Attorney.for Respondent
-
‘,‘
,
‘
Community Landfill
Company
MarkA. LaRose
‘
Clarissa C. Grayson
‘ .
LAROSE &
BOSCO,’Ltd.
.
‘
200
North
LaSalle Street, Suite 2810
Chicago IL 60601
,
,.
,‘
‘(312) 642-4414
,
-
-‘
6
VERI1?ICATION
I,
Robert
Pruim,
bcing
first
duly
sworn
on
Oath,
deposes and states
a~follows:
1.
1 an~thc
President of Community Landfill
Corporation;
2.
1 have read the
forcgoin~
1~espoxtdcntCommunity Landfill Company’
s Answer
to
Complainant’s Fit~t
Set of
Interrogatories and Request for the
Production of
Documents and state that the
answcr~
therein
‘arc
true
and
corrcct to the best olmy
knowledge
and belief.
hefore
me
this
May, 2004,
TO
tayof
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-
I, Clarissa C. Grayson,
an attorney hereby certify that I served RESPONDENT
COMMIJNITY LANDFILL COMPANY’S RESPONSE
TO COMpLA~A~r’S
FIRST
SET
OF INTERROGATORj~sAND REQUEST FOR
THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
byplacing copies ofsame in the United States Mail, first-class postageprepaidthis 1
1th
day of
June
2004, addressed as follows:
,
‘
-‘
Mr. Christopher Grant
Environmental Bureau
.
Assistant Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street,
20th
Floor.
Chicago, 1L60601
Mr.
Charles Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
Rockford, IL 61105
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
Attorney
No. 37346’’
200 N. LaSalle Street
Suite
2810
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
C”
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
-
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
‘
Complainant,
vs.
‘
)
POE No. 03-191
(Enforcement-Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, and
the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
municipal corporation,
Respondents.
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER
GRANT,
.an attorney, do certify’that I caused
to be served this 14th day of July, 2004, Complainant’s First
Motion to Compel Respondent Community Landfill Company, Inc. to
Fully Respond to Discovery, and Notice of Filing, upon the
persons listed on said Notice, by placing same in an envelope
bearing sufficient postage with the United States Postal Service
located at 100 W. Randolph, Chicago Illinois.
CHRISTOPHER
GRANT

Back to top