RECE~VI~ D
CLERK’S OFFICE
JERSEY SANITATION CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB No. 97-2
)
(Enforcement)
SEP 28
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that an original and nine copies of the foregoing Motion
for Extension
of Time
to
File Response
to
Motion for Sanctions were
served
upon
the
Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
and
one
copy
to
each of the
following
parties of record in this
cause by enclosing same, in
an
envelope addressed to:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph
St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
N.’Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62794
Jane
McBride
Office of Attorney General
500 South Second
Street
Springfield, IL 62706
with postage fully
prepaid, and
by
depositing said envelop~
in
a U.S.
Post Office Mail
Box in
Springfield, Illinois before
5:30
p.m.
on September 24,
2004.
Hedinger Law Office
2601
South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 523-2753 phone
(217)
523-4366
fax
This document prepared on recycled paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
Hedinger
RECEWED
CLERK’S OFFICE
SEP
28200k
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
STATE OF ILUNOIS
Pollution ContrOt
Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 97-2
)
(Enforcement)
JERSEY SANITATION CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
0)
Respondent.
0
)
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
NOW COMES Respondent,
JERSEY SANITATION CORPORATION, through its
undersigned
attorney, and moves this Board, through its
hearing officer, for an extension oftime
to
and until
October 6, 2004, within which to file its response to the “Motion for Sanctions,
Request to
Close Record” filed by Complainant.
In support of this motion, Respondent states as
follows:
1.
Complainant has filed a motion contending that a “sanction” should
be imposed
against Respondent to prohibit Respondent from filingaclosin.g brief.
In short, Complainant
seeks a “death
penalty” sanction against Respondent.
2.
Respondent takes Complainant’s motion very seriously.
The motion includes
mischaracterizations ofthe record, of the parties’ respective actions, and of the history of this
case.
Complainant’s instant motion, in fact,
is only
the most recent in
a long history of attempts
to inflict additional “punishment” upon Respondent,
a long history that has already resulted in
the need for Respondent to appeal from improper permit conditions, then to successfully defend
this
Board’s ruling in the appellate court.
Much of the instant enforcement case, in
fact, is no
more than Complainant’s attempt
to circumvent this Board’s and the Appellate Court’s earlier
ruling.
Moreover, Complainant has relied upon sharp practices in pursuing this
enforcement
action, including submitting
a new expert opinion, never previously made, just days before the’
hearing in
this matter, and including the submittal of a 138 page closing brief—nearly twice this
Board’s page limit!
Complainant’s instant motion has been presented even though to date this
Board has never allowed Complainant to file the overstuffed brief, and
even though the hearing
officer has directed Respondent to
submit its
responsive brief with a motion for leave to file
instanter.
3.
Respondent requires
additional time to fully marshall its arguments and
citations in
opposition to
Complainant’s instant motion.
A number of previously-scheduled matters
have
interfered with Respondent’s drafting of the response to date, including court appearances,
appellate
court deadlines, and circuit court pleading deadlines.
4.
In addition, over the upcoming week counsel for Respondent will be
responsible for
filing two additional appellate
court pleadings, both of which
will require research and record
review; counsel also has scheduled the closing discovery activities in
a Truth In Lending Act
class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court.
5.
In consequence of these competing litigation activities, Respondent requests ‘a
reasonable extension of less than two weeks, to
and until October 6, 2004, to respond to
Complainant’s motion.
6.
The extension requested herein is necessary to provide Respondent adequate
opportunity
to address the grounds raised in Complainant’s motion, and to meet Complainant’s
arguments which seek to wholly preclude Respondent from directing a closing briefto this
Board.
Allowance of this motion should have no prejudice
on Complainant, but denial will
deprive Respondent of a meaningful opportunity
to respond to
Complainant’s motion.
9
WHEREFORE Respondent, JERSEY SANITATION CORPORATION, requests
an
extension of time, to
and until
October 6, 2004, within which to submit
its response to the
“Motion for Sanctions, Requestto
Close Records” submitted by Complainant.
Respectfully
submitted,
JERSEY SANITATION CORPORATION,
Respondent,
By its attorneys
HEDINGER LAW OFFICE
0
By:
HEDINGER LAW OFFICE
~
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
.
(217) 523-2753 phone
(217) 523-4366 fax
This document prepared on recycled paper
