CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JAN
102005
STATE OF ILIJNOIS
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
POlIUtton
Control Board
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
v.
)
Enforcement
)
)
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., INC.,
)
EDWIN
L.
FREDERICK, JR., individually and
as
)
owner and President of Skokie Valley Asphalt
)
Co.,
Inc., and RICHARD J. FREDERICK,
)
individually
and as owner and
Vice President of
)
Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
)
Respondents
)
MOTION
TO ESTABLISH DISCOVERY SCHEDULE AND MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND UNDER BOARD ORDER OF
DECEMBER 16~
2004
The Respondents,
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT,
CO., INC.,
EDWiN L.
FREDERICK,
JR., individually and as owner and President of Skokie Valley Asphalt Co.,
Inc., and RICHARD
J.
FREDERICK,
individually
and as owner and Vice President of Skokie Valley Asphalt Co.,
Inc.,
by and through their attorney,
David S.
O’Neill, herein respectfully move the Board to
establish a discovery schedule and for the extension of time to respond under Board Order of
December
16, 2004.
In support of this Motion, the Respondents state as follows:
1.
On September 2, 2004,
the Board filed an Opinion and Order in the above-captioned
matter.
2.
On September 28, 2004, the Respondents filed with the Board a Motion to
Stay and/or
Extend Time
to Respond to Complainant’s Petition for Attorneys’
Fees and Cost as established
by
the Board’s Order of September 2, 2004.
3.
In the September 28, 2004, the Respondents requested the Board to
“allow the
Respondents to perform discovery and participate in evidentiary hearings with respect to the
1
Complainants claims in the Complainant’s Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.” (Motion of
September 28, 2004 at 6.)
4.
On December
16, 2004, the Board issued an Order stating the Respondents’ motion
to
stay was granted in part.
The Board stated that the “Board will not hold any hearings on
attorney’s fees and cost, but will allow the respondents additional time to
respond.”
The
respondents were given
until January
13, 2005 to respond to the State’s request for attorneys’
fees and costs.
(Order of December
16, 2004 at 3.)
5.
With its order ofDecember
16, 2004 Order, the Board
—
by granting the Respondents’
motion
in part and not specifically denying the Respondents’ request for discovery
--
implicitly
ruled that the Respondents are entitled
to discovery with respect to the issue of Complainant’s
request for attorneys’ fees and
costs.
6.
However, in the Order ofDecember
16, 2004,
the Board failed to establish a schedule for
discovery.
7.
The Respondents have sent “Respondents’ First Set of Document Requests Regarding
Attorneys’
Fees, Cost and Expenses”.
8.
The Respondents also plan to send out additional requests to produce, interrogatories and
plan to
take depositions in this
matter.
9.
The Respondents request the Board’s assistance in scheduling this discovery
and
establishing a cut-offdate for the completion of the discovery ‘process.
10.
In
its Oder of December 16, 2004,
the Board established a deadline of January
13,
2005
for the Respondents to
respond to
the Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Order
of December
16, 2004 at 3.)
11.
The Complainant’s response to Respondents’
First Set of Document Requests Regarding
Attorneys’
Fees, Cost and
Expenses is not
due until after the deadline ofJanuary 13, 2005 for the
Respondents to respond to
the Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
12.
The Respondents will need the information gathered from the Complainant’s response to
the Respondents’
First Set ofDocument Requests Regarding Attorneys’
Fees, Cost and
Expenses
to
prepare it s response to the Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs
13.
In addition, the Respondents need the other information that will be acquired through the
2
discovery process to
prepare its
response to the Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees
and
costs.
14.
The date on which the Respondents’ response to
the Complainant’s request for attorney’s
fees and costs needs to be
extended to
a date after the cut-offday for discovery that allows the
Respondents
sufficient time to analyze the discovery material
and prepare their response.
Wherefore the Respondents respectfully request the Board to establish a discovery
schedule for the issue of the Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and
costs and to extend the
date for the Respondents’
to respond to the Complainant’s request for attorneys’ fees and
cost to
a date that allows the Respondents time to
analyze the discovery material and prepare their
response.
J~
~
D~v~IS.ø~1’~ill
—~‘
David
S. O’Neill, Attorney at Law
5487
N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached MOTION TO ESTABLISH
DISCOVERY SCHEDULE AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
UNDER BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER
16, 2004 by hand delivery on January
12, 2005,
upon
the following party:
Mitchell Cohen
•
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
188
W. Randolph, 20th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Davidt
O’Neil’r
NOTARY SEAL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME this
/i7
day of __________________,20
~)S~
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
JAN
10
2005
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARDSTATE OF ILLINOIS
Poflution
Control Board
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 96-98
)
v.
)
Enforcement
)
)
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT, CO., iNC.,
)
EDWIN L.
FREDERICK, JR., individually and
as
)
owner and President of Skokie Valley Asphalt
)
Co.,
Inc., and
RICHARD
J. FREDERICK,
)
individually
and as owner and Vice President of
)
Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc.,
)
Respondents
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution
Control Board the attached MOTION TO ESTABLISH DISCOVERY SCHEDULE AND
MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO RESPOND
UNDER BOARD
ORDER OF
DECEMBER
16,
2004, a copy of which is hereby served upon you.
4J~
~
/
Da~S.
O’Neill
January
12, 2004
David
S. O’Neill,
Attorney at Law
5487 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630-1249
(773) 792-1333
