ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
v
.
)
PC13 97-179
(Enforcement- Air)
MIDWEST GRAIN PRODUCTS OF
)
ILLINOIS, INC ., an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent .
)
RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE INTERROGATORIES, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT UNDUE
EXPENSE AND HARASSMENT
COMES NOW Respondent MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc ., ("MGP" or "Respondent")
f/k/a Midwest Grain Products of Illinois, Inc ., by and through its attorneys, and replies to
Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Strike Complainant's Interrogatories
. In
support of its motion, Respondent states as follows
:
I .
According to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Complainant's response, it has agreed to
withdraw Interrogatories 26 and 28 . Thus, it will not be necessary for Respondent to address
those interrogatories in this reply
.
2 .
Complainant repeatedly misstates in its November 28, 2005 letter and November
30 response that Respondent "refuses to provide any information" regarding the Swiss Combi
system. To the contrary, Respondent has never stated that it refused to comply with any of
Complainant's requests for information relating to the Swiss Combi system
.
3. Respondent clearly presented in its September 20, 2005 letter and its motion to
strike that it disputed the relevance of the Swiss Combi system to this matter. The letter further
expressed Respondent's willingness to discuss the issue with Complainant . In the September 20
letter, Respondent stated on page 2, "We believe information related to the Swiss Combi is not
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
relevant for Discovery purposes in this lawsuit. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss
your theory or theories why we should produce documentation related to the Swiss Combi
system ." On page 3, Respondent twice stated that the Swiss Combi system was not involved in
Respondent's assessment of time and effort to respond to Interrogatories 9 and I I . Respondent is
at a loss as to how these statements could possibly be taken as refusals
.
4 .
Paragraphs 22, 27, and 34 of Respondent's motion to strike present no evidence
of a refusal by Respondent to provide information related to the Swiss Combi system . These
paragraphs simply reiterate Respondent's belief that the Swiss Combi system is not relevant to
this matter. The motion also described Respondent's willingness to discuss the relevance of the
Swiss Combi system prior to the filing of the motion to strike .
5 .
Complainant's letter and response make general references to Respondent's
September 20 letter and motion to strike as containing refusals to respond to Complainant's
requests for information related to the Swiss Combi system . Tellingly, Complainant has not
provided a specific quote or citation wherein Respondent has actually refused to provide such
information. Respondent objects to Complainant's repeated complete mischaracterization of
Respondent's attempts to informally resolve the discovery issues
.
6 .
Regarding Complainant's Interrogatory 4, Complainant has not addressed the
most significant issue raised by Respondent : the burden upon Respondent to comply with the
request as written. As noted in Respondent's September 20 letter, a proper response to
Interrogatory 4 would require retrieving "every document generated by operational activities at
MGP and the preponderance of our financial documentation ." The letter also described the
additional personnel required to assemble such information
.
7 .
Complainant responded that the information was necessary for penalty
calculation purposes. Complainant states that it assumes Respondent will have operation and
maintenance information compiled for Respondent's use at trial . Complainant proceeds to
2
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
inquire of Respondent whether it has operation and maintenance information available
"in any
form" upon which it intends to rely at hearing . Further, Complainant states, "Should information
responsive to the State's discovery request exist, the information is relevant and
should be made
available, in a useful and usable form ."
8 .
Although it is very difficult to discern Complainant's intent from its response,
Respondent wonders if this is Complainant's attempt at narrowing the request
. Respondent
perceives that Complainant will be satisfied with Respondent's response to Interrogatory 4 if
Respondent provides only that operation and maintenance information that Respondent deems
relevant and intends to rely upon at trial . Without withdrawing its objections to Interrogatory 4,
Respondent submits it is willing to provide relevant operation and maintenance
information for
dryers 651 and 661 that it intends to rely upon at trial
.
9
.
Regarding the Swiss Combi portion of the request, without withdrawing its
objections to Interrogatory 4, Respondent submits it is willing to provide relevant operation and
maintenance information for the Swiss Combi system that it intends to rely upon at trial so long
as the Swiss Combi information request is subject to the same perceived narrowing described in
the preceding paragraph
.
10 .
Concerning Complainant's Interrogatory 9, Complainant appears to have
accepted Respondent's second alternative, as set forth in Respondent's September 20
letter, to
narrow the request. Without withdrawing its objections to Interrogatory 9, Respondent is willing
to provide information related to the hours of operation of dryer 651 and/or 661 on a yearly basis
.
I l
.
Regarding the Swiss Combi portion of the request, without withdrawing its
objections to Interrogatory 9, Respondent submits it can provide information related
to the hours
of operation for the Swiss Combi system so long as the Swiss Combi information request
is
subject to the same narrowing described in the preceding paragraph .
3
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
12
.
Complainant apparently contends that Interrogatory I I consists of a general
request and three subparts crafted to "fine tune" the general request
.
13 .
Respondent reiterates its argument from it motion to strike that Complainant's
Interrogatory 1 I consists of four independent requests, with each request seeking information
wholly unrelated to the others. The interrogatory should be revised as four separate
interrogatories, providing Respondent with more detail and direction as to the information
requested .
14 .
Complainant does not address the significant burden Respondent is faced with
should it be required to respond to the interrogatory as written . However, Complainant has posed
the question to Respondent as to whether Respondent would be willing to stipulate "to a given set
of factual information pertinent to the relevant questions ."
15
.
Without withdrawing its objections to Interrogatory 11, Respondent is willing to
conduct an assessment of the nature of those documents related to the construction and operation
of feed dryers 651 and 661, and the Swiss Combi system generated and maintained by
Respondent, and the accessibility and/or availability of such documents . Further, Respondent is
willing to consider the possibility of stipulating to a given set of factual information pertinent to
the relevant questions .'
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and in conjunction with the arguments set forth
in Respondent's original motion to strike, or in the alternative, for a protective order, Respondent
respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer grant its motion to strike Complainant's
interrogatories, or in the alternative, its motion for a protective order limiting Complainant's
interrogatories to prevent undue expense and harassment .
' Because this is the first time Complainant has raised a stipulation as an alternative, Respondent invites the
Complainant to propose a stipulation for consideration and possible agreement
.
4
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
I IUSCH & EPPENBERGER,
LLC
Husch & Eppenberger, LLC
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite
600
St. Louis, Missouri
63105
(314) 480-1500
5
By
One of its attorneys
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, DECEMBER 9, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did on the 9th day of December, 2005, send a true and
accurate copy of RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERROGATORIES, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING
INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT UNDUE EXPENSE AND HARASSMENT by
first class mail, postage prepaid to :
Jane E. McBride
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second St .
Springfield, IL 62706
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Ave. Fast
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
//
'".0
.«
Attorney
p*j
be4arf
of
to
-
'-&J
rt
.
f(k~s
