¼
~
CLERK’S OFFICE
SEP
1 32004
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILUNOIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control
Board
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 9,
2004
The Honorable
Dorothy Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
State of Illinois
Center
100 West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Re:
People v. Jersey Sanitation
Corporation
PCB
No. 97-2
Dear Clerk Gunn:
Enclosed for
filing please
find
the
original and
ten
copies of a
NOTICE
OF
FILING
and
MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS,
REQUEST TO CLOSE RECORD in
regard
to the above-captioned
matter.
Please file the original and return
a file-stamped copy of the document to our office in the
enclosed,
self-addressed, stamped
envelope.
Thank you
for your cooperation and
consideration.
Very truly yours,
Jane
E.
McBride
Environmental Bureau
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9031
JEM/pp
Enclosures
500 South
Second Street,
SpringOeld, Illinois
62706
•
(2I7)~782-l090
•
1’TY: (217)
785-2771
•
Fax:
(217) 782-7046
100 West
Randolph
Street, Chicago,
Illinois
60601
•
(312)
814—300))
•
TTY: (312) 814—3374
•
Fax:
(312) 814-3806
1001
I
ist
\1
in
(
irhond ik
IlIinot~6~90I
(6l~)
~2~)
64))))
1
I
‘i
(61~)~20640
I
i’~
(61~)s29
6416
/
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
CLERK’S
OFACE
Complainant,
)
SEP
13
2004
)
PCB
NO. 97-2
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
(Enforcement)
PoIlut~onControl Board
JERSEY SANITATION
CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF
FILING
To:
Stephen
F.
Hedinger
Attorney at
Law
2601
South
Fifth Steet
Springfield,
IL 62703
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that on this
date
I
mailed for filing with
the Clerk of the Pollution
Control
Board
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
MOTION
FOR
SANCTIONS,
REQUEST
TO
CLOSE
RECORD,
copies of which are attached
hereto and
herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the
State
of Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
~
~-‘JANE
E.
McBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental
Bureau
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
September 9,
2004
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
I
hereby certify that
I
did
on
September 9,
2004,
send
by
First
Class
Mail,
with
postage
thereon fully
prepaid,
by depositing
in a
United
States Post Office Box a true
and correct copy of
the following instruments entitled NOTICE OF FILING and MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, REQUEST
TO
CLOSE
RECORD
To:
Mr. Stephen Hedinger
Hedinger Law
Office
2601
South
Fifth Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62703
and the original and
ten copies by
First Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully
prepaid of the same
foregoing
instrument(s):
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
State of Illinois Center
Suite
11-500
100 West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
A copy was also sent by First Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully prepaid
To:
Carol Sudman
Hearing
Officer
Pollution
Control Board
1021
N.
Grand
Avenue East
Springfield,
Illinois 62794
~-1
1d~ne
E.
McBride
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted
on
recycled paper.
REcg~v~~
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
SEP
132004
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution
Control Board
vs.
)
PCB No. 97-2
JERSEY
SANITATION
CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois
corporation,
)
Respondent.
MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS,
REQUEST
TO
CLOSE RECORD
NOW
COMES
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
and
moves the
Board,
pursuant to
Section
101 .800 of the
Board’s Procedural
Rules,
to grant sanctions in the
form of the closing the
record
in this matter,
due to the Respondent’s failure to
adhere to the
post-trial briefing
schedule set forth in
a Hearing
Officer Order
dated July
19, 2004.
The
Respondent was to
file
its brief on August 2,
2004, and
to this
date has
failed to
file a
brief.
The
Complainant states
the following
in support of
its
motion:
1.
On
January 13,
2004,
the Hearing
Officer issued
her Hearing
Report
in
this
matter and
set the post-trial
briefing schedule
as follows:
Complainant’s
brief was due
on
March
15,
2004,
Respondent’s
brief was due on April
26, 2004,
and
Complainant’s
reply brief, if any,
was due on
May
10,
2004.
2.
On
March
1, 2004,
the parties
contacted the
Hearing Officer to
request an
additional
three weeks
to file
post-hearing briefs.
The Hearing
Officer granted the request.
The
Complainant’s
brief was
due on
April 5,2004 and the Respondent’s
brief was due on
May
17,
2004.
Complainant’s reply brief,
if any, was due
May 31,
2004.
3.
On April
2,
2004,
Complainant contacted the Hearing
Officer after speaking
with
counsel for the Respondent,
and requested
an additional
two weeks to
file
its post-hearing
brief.
Counsel for the
Respondent had
indicated
he had
no objection
to the additional extension
of time.
The Hearing
Officer granted Complainant’s request.
Complainant’s brief was now due
April
19,
2004, and
respondent’s brief was due June
1,
2004.
4.
Complainant filed
its brief on April
19,
2004.
Upon requests for extensions of
time made
prior to the Complainant’s
deadline, Complainant received a total of 5 additional
weeks within which to file
its brief.
5.
On July
16,
2004, a
month and
a half after its brief was due,
Respondent
contacted
the Hearing
Officer to request an
extension
of
its deadline for its
post-hearing
brief.
Although the last Hearing
Officer order indicated
no further extensions would
be granted,
Respondent’s attorney indicated that
he could not meet the current deadline for various
reasons.
The Hearing
Officer granted an
additional extension.
Respondent’s
brief was
now
due
on August 2,
2004 and
the People’s
reply was
due on August
16,
2004.
6.
As of this date, September 9,
2004,
Respondent has failed to
file its brief.
The
amount of additional
time that has
passed since Respondent’s
June
1, 2004
deadline
is three
months and
8 days, or approximately
13 weeks.
This amount
of time far exceeds the five
additional weeks granted the Complainant upon
the Complainant’s timely motions for
extensions of time.
7.
In
the Hearing Officer’s
order of July19,
2004, the Hearing Officer noted
that the
hearing in
this matter had been
held
10
months prior to the date
of the current order.
Another
two months
has now
lapsed.
The hearing in
this matter was
initiated on
September 23-24,
2003 and
concluded on January
13,
2004.
8.
Complainant is prejudiced
by the delay
in that a significant amount of time has
passed
since this case has
been presented for hearing
and the first brief drafted.
The
Complainant will
now be forced
to
re-familiarize itself,
once again,after the passage
of the time,
with the extensive record that exists
in this
matter,
including
all
facts and
arguments.
9.
The history of this proceeding
shows that the Respondent previously
caused
delay, even during
the hearing.
The hearing
was continued
on
September 24, 2004, due
to the
Respondent’s
request for additional time for
its
engineering
expert to
review exhibits.
The night
before the continuance,
Respondent identified two witnesses
it intended
to
call
to testify,
neither
of which has
been
previously
disclosed.
The
next day, Complainant objected to
the new
witnesses.
Pre-hearing
disclosures
of the parties’ witnesses, filed
in this matter, which clearly
showed that the
new witnesses had
not been previously disclosed, were offered
and
admitted
as
exhibits.
The Hearing
Officer refused
to sustain
Complainant’s
objection
but granted
Complainant’s request to depose
the
new witnesses and
continued
the matter.
The matter was
continued
until
January 13, 2004 to
allow time for disclosure of the
new witnesses’ opinions and
the scheduling
of depositions.
10.
Counsel for Complainant will
be out of town for significant portions of October.
Counsel for the Complainant
has, repeatedly
attempted to adjust her schedule
in
order
to
reserve time to
draft a reply brief,
and
has
been in contact with
individuals from the
Illinois
EPA
who
might review or assist in the drafting of a
reply brief so
as to
assure their availability during
the briefing schedule.
It has become
extremely cumbersome to
constantly attempt to
reserve
time for the drafting and
review of a
reply brief, when the Respondent has
consistently failed
to
ad here to the
briefing schedule set by the
Hearing
Officer.
WHEREFORE,
for the foregoing
reasons, Complainant respectfully requests that the
Board acknowledge
Respondent’s failure to adhere to
the briefing
schedule set
in this matter by
Hearing
Officer order,
and
order the record
in this matter closed.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
~
~.
LISA MAD IGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement
Division
BY:
___________________
•—“
JANE
E.
MCBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
500
South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
(217) 782-9031
