1 Anthony Stout, the author of the affidavit, is the senior land use planner at the

engineering firm retained by Appellee-Applicant; he did not hold himself out as an engineer in his affidavit. Appellant’s motion to a mend is GRANTED in that the Court will correct references in the February 20, 2008 decisio n to him as the “project engineer” to more accurately reflect his position in the engineering firm.

1 STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
} In re: Deer View LLC PUD Subdivision Application } Docket No. 182-8-07 Vtec (Appeal of Madden) } }
Decision and Order on Appellant’s Motions to Amend and to Compel Appellant John Madden appealed from a decision of the Planning Commission of the Town of New Haven approving a six-lot commercia l PUD subdivision. Appellant has appeared and represents himself; Appellee-ApplicantDeer View, LLC is represented by Evan Punderson, Esq.; and the Town is represented by James Ouimette, Esq. The Court issued one Decision and Order on February 5, 2008, resolving AppelleeApplicant’s motions to dismiss Questions 2 and 3 ofthe Statement of Questions, AppelleeApplicant’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack o f standing, and Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The February 5, 2008 decision left open Appellee-Ap plicant’s motion for summary judgment, as the scheduling order allowed Appellant more time to respond to it. The February 5, 2008 decision noted that Appellant had not then filed any affidavits or other material to counter the affidavit of Appellee-Appli cant’s project engineer 1 , and clearly laid out the standard that Vermont courts are required t o apply in analyzing a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the February 5, 2008 decision explained that:2 [i]n responding to a motion for summary judgment su pported by affidavits and other evidentiary material, the nonmo ving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in its pleadin gs.” White v. Quechee Lakes Landowners’ Ass’n, 170 Vt. 25, 28 (1999). Rather, V.R.C.P. 56(e) requires that the opposing party must set forth spe cific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Dillon v. Champion Jogbra , Inc. , 175 Vt. 1, 2–3 (2002). Those facts must be supported by affidavits or othe r evidentiary material. Morway v. Trombly, 173 Vt. 266, 270 (2001). It is not sufficient fo r the opposing party to rely on “conclusory allegations o r mere conjecture.” Mello v. Cohen, 168 Vt. 639, 641 (1998). “[M]ere allegations of counsel unsupported by documented evidence are not enough to create a g enuine issue of material fact” sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Pro gressive Ins. Co. v. Wasoka, 178 Vt. 337, 349, 2005 VT 76, ¶25. The February 5, 2008 decision specifically gave App ellant more time and opportunity to file any such responsive affidavits or otherwise to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, and specifically reiterated the dea dline of February 15 for those filings. On January 27, 2008 (received January 28, 2008) Appe llant had apparently sent requests to answer what he had characterized as “de positions on written questions”( citing V.R.C.P. 31), to Mr. Stout, as well as to two members of the State Police who had investigated accidents in the area of Route 7 at is sue in this appeal. The request to Mr. Stout, attached to the present motion to compel, re flects that it was not accompanied by a subpoena to attend a deposition before an officer, in the manner provided by V.R.C.P. 30(c), (e) and (f), as provided in V.R.C.P. 31(b), a nd did not provide for the production of a record of the deposition as provided under those rules. Rather, the questions are requested to be answered under oath before a notary public, and resemble the procedure under V.R.C.P. 33 for written interrogatories. During the period between the filing of the “deposi tions on written questions” on January 28, 2008, and the February 15, 2008 deadlin e for the filing of his response to Appellee-Applicant’s motion for summary judgment, A ppellant did not request a
reduction of the time for the answers to the writte n questions, or a reduction of the time3

provided in V.R.C.P. 31 for the filing of the quest ions and scheduling of the deposition. V.R.E.C.P. 2(c); V.R.C.P. 33(a). Nor did Appellantrequest more time to respond to Appellee-Applicant’s motion for summary judgment du e to the time required for responses to the “depositions on written questions.” Appellant did not file any further factual material or affidavits by the deadline of Friday, February 15. Due to the postal holiday on Monday, February 18, the Court waited
until the mail had been received at the Court on Tu esday February 19 and Wednesday, February 20, before ruling on Appellee-Applicant’s M otion for Summary Judgment. The February 5, 2008 decision had explained that, a s discussed in In re Morris 7-Lot
Subdivision, 71-4-07 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 26, 2007), eachparty’s motion for summary judgment is analyzed giving the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences. Alpine Haven Property Owners Ass'n, In c. v. Deptula, 175 Vt. 559, 561, 2003 VT 51, ¶8. The February 20, 2008 decision granting Appellee-Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgment discussed that Appellant had prese nted some accident data but had “not filed any affidavits of any expert or other wi tnesses linking this accident data to the location, topography or sight distances that could be affected by the proposed intersection of the project driveway with Route 7,” to counter th e affidavit filed by Appellee-Applicant. Even giving Appellant, as the nonmoving party, the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences in analyzing Appellee-Applicant’s mo tion for summary judgment, the February 20, 2008 decision concluded that: Appellant’s accident report information, taken alon e without any expert opinion linking that information to the proposed pr oject driveway, does not raise a reasonable inference regarding the potentia l effect of the project driveway on public safety on Route 7. Appellant ha s not come forward with any disputed material facts for trial regarding the topography of Route 7 and other roadways in the project’s vicinity, or regard ing the long unobstructed sight distances north and south of the project driv eway. Appellant has not shown that material facts are in dispute to raise a genuine issue for trial2 See footnote 1, above.

4

regarding the opinion expressed in the project engineer’s 2 affidavit that the layout and design of the proposed PUD subdivision a ccess driveway will not cause any danger to public safety as to the trafficusing Route 7. Appellant moved under V.R.C.P. 59 to correct or ame nd the decision and order on March 5, 2008; the filing was timely within the 10 day time period allowed under V.R.C.P. 59, as time is to be computed under V.R.C.P. 6(a). The motion requests that the February 20, 2008 decision and order be vacated until Appell ant can include in his memorandum the responses to the outstanding “depositions on writte n questions.” In the same filing, Appellant also moved to compel answers to those que stions. The State of Vermont is not a party to this appeal, and Appellant does not appe ar to have sent a copy of his motion to any representative of the State or of the State Pol ice. Appellee-Applicant’s response to the motion to compel is simply that it is moot as the F ebruary 20, 2008 decision and order disposed of the case. The timely filing of the V.R.C.P. 59 motion allows the Court to consider these issues; they are not moot. As to the members of the State Police, the Motion t o Compel is DENIED. Neither the specific officers, the State Police, nor the St ate of Vermont are parties to the action. The procedures of V.R.C.P. 31 and 30 have not been foll owed, but in any event, on the present record, the officers would be entitled to the prote ction of V.R.C.P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) regarding the opinion of unretained experts. As to the questions posed to Mr. Stout, because the February 20, 2008 decision was granted in Appellee-Applicant’s favor due to Appell ant’s failure to provide countering evidence and affidavits, and because Appellant had sought such information prior to the closure of the time for such responses, Appellant’s motion to compel is hereby GRANTED in PART as follows. The questions will be treated as written interrogatories and shall be5

answered on a schedule as provided in the final par agraph of this decision. If, on the basis of the answers, Appellant then moves under V.R.C.P. 60(b) for relief from the February 20, 2008 decision, order, and judgment, the Court will address such motion at that time. Please note that V.R.C.P. 60(b) provides that the filing o f a V.R.C.P. 60(b) motion “does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation .”

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby O RDERED and ADJUDGED that Appellant’s motion to amend under V.R.C.P. 59 is GR ANTED in PART, as stated in footnote 1, above. A copy of the corrected decisio n is attached with the corrections in bold type; the corrected version will also be posted on the Court’s website. Appellant’s motion to compel answers to the “deposi tion upon written questions” posed to the members of the State Police is DENIED, as discussed above. As the motion to compel itself does not appear to have been serve d upon any representative of the State or the State Police, a courtesy copy of this rulingwill be sent to the Office of the Attorney
General. Appellant’s motion to compel answers to the “deposi tion upon written questions” posed to Mr. Stout will be treated as if the questi ons were posed as written interrogatories,
and is GRANTED in PART as discussed above. On or b efore April 10, 2008, AppelleeApplicant shall file a proposed schedule with the C ourt stating when the answers from Mr. Stout will be provided, in the form of sworn answer s to interrogatories. AppelleeApplicant shall also file a certificate of service with the Court when those answers have in fact been mailed to Appellant. If Appellant belie ves that the answers provide a basis for asking the Court for relief from the February 20, 20 08 decision and order on summary judgment, and files such a motion under V.R.C.P. 60( b), the Court will consider it at that
time.6

The February 20, 2008 decision and order, as amende d, and the accompanying judgment order, remain in effect and this appeal rem ains concluded.

Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 3 rd day of April, 2008.

_________________________________________________ Merideth Wright Environmental Judge