1. Page 1
    2. Page 2
    3. Page 3
    4. Page 4
    5. Page 5
    6. Page 6
    7. Page 7
    8. Page 8
    9. Page 9
    10. Page 10
 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
ex rel.
STATE'S ATTORNEY CHARLES GARNATI,
And THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD,
Petitioners,
RECEIVED
uLFac'S OFFICE
JUL 1 4 2008
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
v.
?
Case No. PCB 2008-93
Permit Appeal-Land
KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
MARION RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., and
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
NOW COME Respondents, KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MARION
RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., through their undersigned attorney, and for their response to the
"Request For Production" purportedly served upon these Respondents by Petitioners on or about
June 25, 2008, state as follows:
1.
General Objection
to all discovery requests.
In this case, Petitioners purport to
have brought a third-party permit appeal from the grant of a permit by Respondent Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") in favor of these Respondents. No statutory authority
exists for this action, and these Petitioners lack standing to bring such a matter before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, and so all discovery is improper, as are all pleadings.
2.
General Objection to all discovery
requests.
This Board has unambiguously
ruled that discovery is inappropriate in permit appeals matters, and is unavailable to permit appeal
petitioners and respondents alike. DesPlaines River Watershed Alliance v. IEPA, PCB 04-88 (Nov.
17, 2005). Despite this unambiguous ruling, and with no good faith argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of the existing law, Petitioners requested this Board's approval to set a
discovery schedule, and subsequently served the purported discovery requests upon Respondents.
The only issue in any permit
appeal must concern whether the IEPA's
decision, based solely upon
the materials in front of the IEPA, was consistent with the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and
the Board regulations, and therefore the only documentation relevant to this or any other purported
 
permit appeal action is, and would be, the documentation in front of and available to the IEPA at the
time a decision is made. The IEPA is under regulatory obligation (and in this specific case, hearing
officer order), to provide its "administrative record," which consists of all documents before it
relevant to its decision making, and therefore there is no basis for, or authority for, the discovery
Petitioners attempt to engage in. Indeed, the attempt appears no more than harrassment, inasmuch
as Petitioners lack any authority to bring this action in the first place, and even if some authority
exists for the action, the documentation is irrelevant to any issue involved in the action.
3.
General Objection to the request
for production.
In addition to the above, these
Respondents note that the "Request For Production" purportedly served by Petitioners are
procedurally improper, and fail to provide information necessary for Respondents to answer
completely. Among other things, the caption fails to identify any case number associated with the
request for production, and the requests are not directed to any particular party or parties. Although
the "Request For Production" were sent to counsel, Petitioners failed to identify which of the
Respondents counsel's clients the requests are directed to. In addition, the requests request
information which is not reasonably related to any issue in this proceeding, nor is it likely to result
in the development of relevant information; the request for production are vague, ambiguous and
uncertain; and the requests have been interposed solely for an improper purpose, which is to harass
and burden these Respondents.
Response to Request
No. 1.
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); without
waiving said objections, and only as an accommodation to Petitioners, responsive documents
consist of the "Interrogatories" purportedly served by Petitioners in this case, and
DesPlaines
River Watershed Alliance v. IEPA,
PCB 04-88 (Nov. 17, 2005) both of which are already in your
possession or available to you.
Response to Request
No. 2.
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
2
 
Response to Request
No. 3.
See general objections (paragraphs
1,
2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Response to Request
No. 4.
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Response to Request No. 5
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Response to Request No.
6
See general objections (paragraphs
I,
2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Response to Request
No. 7
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3);only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents. See also Answer to Interrogatory No.3.
Response to Request
No. 8
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3),;only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents. See also Answer to Interrogatory No. 3.
Response to Request No.
9
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); only those
3
 
By
Stephe,"
silLeite"
. Hedinger
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Response to Request No.
10
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Response
to
Request No,
11
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); only those
documents included in the administrative record are or will be relevant to this matter, and Petitioners
have (or will have) copies of all such documents; hence this request is unduly burdensome and
interposed solely to harass these Respondents.
Respectfully submitted,
Kibler Development Corporation & Marion Ridge
Landfill, Inc., Respondents,
By their attorney,
HEDINGER LA
FICE
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield,
IL
62703
Telephone: (217) 523-2753
Fax: (217) 523-4366
hedinger@hedingerlaw.com
4
 
P?
CI
S
Pa cornel:Noi
oppep
JUL 1 4
2008
S
TATE
k
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
?rot
Board
PEOPLE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY ex rel
STATE'S ATTORNEY CHARLES GARNATI,
And THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD,
Petitioners,
v.
?
Case No. PCB 2008-93
Permit Appeal-Land
KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
MARION RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., and
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that an original and nine copies of the foregoing Answer to
Petitioners' Request For Production and of this Notice of Filing and Proof of Service, were served
upon the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and one copy to each of the following
parties of record and hearing officer in this cause by enclosing same in an envelope addressed to:
John Therriault, Acting Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Melanie Jarvis
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Michael J. Ruffley
Assistant State's Attorney
200 Jefferson
Williamson County Courthouse
Marion, IL 62959
Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
Querrey & Harrow
75 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604-2827
with postage fully prepaid, and by depositing said envelopes in a U.S. Post Office Mail Box in
Springfield, Illinois before 5:30 p.m. on the 9th day of July, 2008. Copies were also sent to
Melanie Jarvis, Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz and Carol Webs is fax and email before 5:00 p.m. the
same date.
ae-
 
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
Telephone:
(217) 523-2753
Stephen F. Hedinger
This document prepared on recycled paper
 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR
ECEIVED
PEOPLE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
ex rel.
CLERICS OFFICE
STATE'S ATTORNEY CHARLES GARNATI,?
JUL 1 4 2008
And THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD, ?
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Petitioners,
v.
?
) Case No. PCB 2008-93
Permit Appeal-Land
KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
?
)
MARION RIDGE LANDFILL INC., and
?
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,?
)
Respondents.?
)
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' INTERROGATORIES
NOW COME Respondents, KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MARION
RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., through their undersigned attorney, and for their response to the
"Interrogatories" purportedly served upon these Respondents by Petitioners on or about June 25,
2008, state as follows:
1.
General Objection
to all discovery
requests.
In this case, Petitioners purport to
have brought a third-party permit appeal from the grant of a permit by Respondent Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") in favor of these Respondents. No statutory authority
exists for this action, and these Petitioners lack standing to bring such a matter before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, and so all discovery is improper, as are all pleadings.
2.
General
Objection to all discovery
requests.
This Board has unambiguously
ruled that discovery is inappropriate in permit appeals matters, and is unavailable to permit appeal
petitioners and respondents alike.
DesPlaines River Watershed Alliance v. IEPA,
PCB 09-88 (Nov.
17, 2005). Dispite this unambiguous ruling, and with no good faith argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of the existing law, Petitioners requested this Board's approval to set a
discovery schedule, and subsequently served the purported discovery requests upon Respondents.
The only issue in any permit appeal
must concern whether the IEPA's
decision, based solely upon
the materials in front of the IEPA, was consistent with the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and
the Board regulations, and therefore the only documentation relevant to this or any other purported
 
permit appeal action is, and would be, the documentation in front of and available to the IEPA at the
time a decision is made. The IEPA is under regulatory obligation (and in this specific case, hearing
officer order), to provide its "administrative record," which consists of all documents before it
relevant to its decision making, and therefore there is no basis for, or authority for, the discovery
Petitioners attempt to engage in. Indeed, the attempt appears no more than harrassment, inasmuch
as Petitioners lack any authority to bring this action in the first place, and even if some authority
exists for the action, the documentation is irrelevant to any issue involved in the action.
3.
General
Objection to these interrogatories.
In addition to the above, these
Respondents note that the "Interrogatories" purportedly served by Petitioners are procedurally
improper, and fail to provide information necessary for Respondents to answer completely. Among
other things, the caption fails to identify any case number associated with the interrogatories, and
the interrogatories are not directed to any particular party or parties. Although the
"Interrogatories" were sent to counsel, Petitioners failed to identify which of the Respondents
counsel's clients the interrogatories are directed to. In addition, the interrogatories request
information which is not reasonably related to any issue in this proceeding, nor is it likely to result
in the development of relevant information; the interrogatories are vague, ambiguous and uncertain;
and the interrogatories have been interposed solely for an improper purpose, which is to harass and
burden these Respondents.
Interrogatory No. 1.
Counsel for these Respondents has drafted this response. Also see
general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3) set forth above.
Interrogatory No. 2.
See answer to Interrogatory No.
1.
Interrogatory No. 3.
These Respondents have no idea what this case is about, because
there is no statutory authority for any such action. In the event the Board determines that there is
any basis for this action, and in the event that Petitioners identify issues that are within the Board's
jurisdiction and authority to consider, and in the event there is a ruling that Petitioners are permitted
to engage in discovery in an action such as this, Respondents will at that time develop a list of
witnesses to address the issues raised.
2
 
Interrogatory No. 4.
See general objections (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3), above. All
information relevant to this issue, if any, is or will be available in the administrative record to be
submitted by the IEPA.
Interrogatory No. 5.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Int
erro
g
atory No. 6.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory No. 7.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory No. 8
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory No. 9
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory
?
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above. Also, objection on the
basis that settlement discussions are privileged.
Interrogatory No, 11
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above. See also answer to
Interrogatory No. 10, above.
Interrogatory No. 12
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Inte rrogatory lo.
13
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory No. 14
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory No. 15
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Interrogatory No. 16
See answer to Interrogatory No. 4, above.
Respectfully submitted,
Kibler Development Corporation
&
Marion Ridge
Landfill, Inc., Respondents,
By their attorney,
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
Telephone: (217) 523-2753
Fax: (217) 523-4366
hedinger@hedingerlaw.com
3
 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOAlaeceiveto
CLE*S OFFICE
JUL 14 2008
Pollution
_STATE
Controi
OF
ILLI
NOIS
Board
Case No. PCB 2008-93
Permit Appeal-Land
KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
MARION RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., and
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that an original and nine copies of the foregoing Answer to
Petitioners' Interrogatories and of this Notice of Filing and Proof of Service, were served upon the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and one copy to each of the following parties of
record and hearing officer in this cause by enclosing same in an envelope addressed to:
PEOPLE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY ex rel
STATE'S ATTORNEY CHARLES GARNATI,
And THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD,
Petitioners,
v.
John Therriault, Acting Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Melanie Jarvis
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Michael J. Ruffley
Assistant State's Attorney
200 Jefferson
Williamson County Courthouse
Marion, IL 62959
Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
Querrey & Harrow
75 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604-2827
with postage fully prepaid, and by depositing said envelopes in a U.S. Post Office Mail Box in
Springfield, Illinois before 5:30 p.m. on the 9th day of July, 2008. Copies were also sent to
Melanie Jarvis, Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz and Carol W- e : via fa nd em before 5:00 p.m. the
same date.
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
Telephone: (217) 523-2753
This document prepared on recycled paper
4

Back to top