BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,)
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General)
of the State of Illinois,)
Complainant,)
V.)
)
PCB 96-98
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC.,
)
(Enforcement
-
RCRA)
an Illinois Corporation, 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
TO:
Mr. David S. O'Neill, Esq.
Ms. Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Mr. Michael B. Jawgiel, Esq.
Pollution Control Board
5487 North Milwaukee Avenue
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Chicago, Illinois 60630-1249
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed
Complainant's Response to
"Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Motion for Protective Order and Response
to Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Objection to Discovery and Respondents'
Motion to Compel Complainant's Response to Discovery Request"
with the Office of the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, true and correct copies of which are attached
hereto and herewith served upon you.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
BY:__
MICHAEL C. PARTEE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau/North
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel: (312) 814-2069
Fax: (312) 814-2347
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 17, 2005
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,)
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General)
of the State of Illinois,)
Complainant,
)
V.)
)
PCB3 96-98
SKOKIE VALLEY ASPHALT CO., INC.,
)
(Enforcement
-
RCRA)
an Illinois Corporation, 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.)
COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO "RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENTS'NMOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTION TO
DISCOVERY AND RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLAINANT'S
RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUEST"
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois, hereby responds to Respondents', SKOKIE VALLEY
ASPHALT CO., INC., EDWIN L. FREDERICK, JR., and RICHARD
J.
FREDERICK, "Motion
to Strike Complainant's Motion for Protective Order and Response to Respondents' Motion to
Strike Complainant's Objection to Discovery and Respondents' Motion to Compel
Complainant's Response to Discovery Requests."
In support of its response, Complainant states
as follows:
RELEVANT CASE HISTORY
1
.
On July 20, 2005, Complainant filed its Response to Respondents' (two) Motions
to Strike Complainant's Letters of May 24, 2005 and June 14, 2005 Regarding Discovery.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 17, 2005
Significantly, Complainant's Letter of May 24, 2005, in part, addressed another of Respondents'
recent motions to strike: Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Discovery Requests.
2.
Also on July 20, 2005, Complainant filed its Motion for Protective Order and
Response to "Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Objeciions to Discovery and
Respondents' Motion to Compel Complainant's Response to Discovery Request."
3.
Respondents failed to respond to Complainant's Motion for Protective Order
within 14 days pursuant to Section 101.500 of the Board's Procedural Rules
(35
III. Adm. Code
101.500).
4.
However, on August 15, 2005, Respondents filed two more motions to strike:
"Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Response to Respondents' Motions to Strike
Complainant's Letters of May 24, 2005 and June 14, 2005 Regarding Discovery" (hereafter
referred to as "Respondents' Fifth Motion to Strike") and "Respondents' Motion to Strike
Complainant's Motion for Protective Order and Response to Respondents' Motion to Strike
Complainant's Objection to Discovery and Respondents' Motion to Compel Complainant's
Response to Discovery Request" (hereafter referred to as "Respondents' Sixth Motion to
Strike").
5.
Complainant responds to Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike herein and
responds to Respondents' Fifth Motion to Strike in a separate pleading.
RESPONDENTS' SIXTH MOTION TO STRIKE MUST BE DENIED
6.
Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike is the latest in a series of seemingly never-
ending motions to strike from Respondents.
7.
Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike is nonresponsive to the facts and law set
forth in the pleading that it seeks to strike, namely Complainant's. Motion for Protective Order
2
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 17, 2005
and Response to "Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Objection to Discovery and
Respondents' Motion to Compel Complainant's Response to Discovery Requests."
Complainant's pleading sets forth facts and law in support of its Motion for Protective Order and
Response.
Complainant showed numerous and specific examples of why Respondents'
discovery requests are objectionable and why the Board should issue a protective order against
Respondents' abusive discovery tactics.
Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike does not address a
single fact, case, court rule or Board rule raised in Complainant's pleading.
S.
Relative to the numerous motions to strike that preceded it, Respondents' Sixth
Motion to Strike raises no new facts or law whatsoever.
9.
With one exception, Respondents Sixth Motion to Strike is simply a repetition of
previous argument made without reliance on any legal authority.
10.
The exception is that Respondents now argue that Complainant's Motion for a
Protective Order should not be granted because "[t]he Complainant has failed to exercise a
number of means to object to the Respondents
[sic]
discovery requests that would not require a
protective order and extensive intervention by the Board."
(Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike
at 4,1[ 28.)
11.
Respondents do not identify any of the means by which Complainant should have
objected to discovery.
Obviously, such means do not include such traditional means as
discovery objections and Supreme Court Rule 201(k) conferences because Respondents already
moved to strike Complainant's discovery objections and Rule 201(k) correspondence..
Respondents' argument based on some unspecified, alternative means of resolving a discovery
dispute other than discovery objections and Rule 201 (k) is wholly without merit.
3
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 17, 2005
12.
Respondents' argument that Complainant should not be granted a protective order
is also surreptitiously made through a motion to strike because Respondents failed to file a
timely response to Complainant's Motion for a Protective Order pursuant to the Board's
Procedural Rule 101.500.
This should not be permitted by the Board.
13.
Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike must be denied.
14.
Complainant also respectfully submits that the Board should no longer tolerate
Respondents' frivolous pleadings.
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in favor
of Complainant and against Respondents as follows:
A.
Denying Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike;
B.
Assessing against Respondents the Complainant's reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs in responding to Respondents' Sixth Motion to Strike; and
C.
Granting any further relief that is just and fair under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
B
Y____"W
MICHAEL C. PARTEE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau/North
188 West Randolph, Suite 2001
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel: (312)814-2069
Fax: (312)814-2347
4
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 17, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that true and correct copies of the
Notice of Filing
and
Complainant's Response to "Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Motion for
Protective Order and Response to Respondents' Motion to Strike Complainant's Objection
to Discovery and Respondents' Motion to Compel Complainant's Response to Discovery
Request"
were sent by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the persons listed on the Notice of
Filing on August
17, 2005.
BY
____L
MICHAEL C. PARTEE
It is hereby certified that the foregoing were electronically filed with the Board on
August 17, 2005:
Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
BY___
MICHAEL C. PARTEE
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 17, 2005
