Court Opinion

ID: 9900763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 13:11:52.523951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:17.417316
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division                                                     Docket No. 20-3-20 Vtec
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,                                        Docket No. 48-6-20 Vtec
Burlington, VT 05401                                                      Docket No. 22-ENV-0084
802-951-1740                                                             Docket No. 23-ENV-00004
www.vermontjudiciary.org

                 Costco Wholesale Corp. LU Permit Amendment and JO Appeal

                                  ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
  Motion A:       Motion in Limine
  Filer:          Alexander J. LaRosa, Attorney for R.L. Vallee, Inc.
  Filed Date:     October 09, 2023
  Opposition to R.L. Vallee’s Motion in Limine, filed by Mark G. Hall, Attorney for Costco on
         October 23, 2023
  *******************************************************************************************
  Motion B:     Motion in Limine
  Filer:          Alexander J. LaRosa, Attorney for R.L. Vallee, Inc.
  Filed Date:     October 19, 2023
  Opposition to R.L. Vallee’s Motion in Limine, filed by Mark G. Hall, Attorney for Costco on
        October 26, 2023

  Motion A is DENIED; we DECLINE TO CONSIDER Motion B prior to trial.
           R.L. Vallee, Inc. (“Vallee”) and Timberlake Associates, LLP (“Timberlake”) seek to preclude
  Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) from introducing certain testimony and evidence during
  next week’s merits hearing. The first motion (“Motion A”) includes three requests: (1) that the Court
  exclude evidence of traffic modeling prepared by Chris Tiesler because it is outdated and irrelevant;
  (2) that the Court bar Costco from introducing evidence of its compliance with any permit conditions;
  and (3) that the Court preclude Costco from introducing evidence in dockets 22-ENV-00084 and 23-
  ENV-00004 that is unrelated to the Act 250 material change test. The second motion (“Motion B”)
  seeks to preclude Costco from calling any undisclosed or newly disclosed witnesses that Vallee and
  Timberlake have not had an opportunity to depose. For the reasons stated below, we deny Motion A
  and decline to consider Motion B prior to trial.
            Because this Court conducts bench trials, we liberally admit relevant evidence. Diverging
Diamond Interchange A250 and SW Permits, Nos. 169-12-16, 50-6-16 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. Super.
Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 8, 2018) (Walsh, J.) (citing The Van Sicklen Ltd. P’ship, No. 4C1013R-EB, slip
op. at 1 (Vt. Env. Bd. Sep. 28, 2001)). Unlike a jury, we are unlikely to be “unduly swayed by a
questionable evidentiary offering.” Id. Once relevant evidence is admitted, we afford it the weight it
deserves, if any. Id.; In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P’ship I, 2015 VT 49, ¶ 90, 199 Vt. 19.
            The Court is wary of prospectively barring potentially relevant evidence—especially in a matter
as complex as this one. Vallee and Timberlake argue that Chris Tiesler’s traffic models are outdated
and irrelevant because they predate VTrans’ construction of the Diverging Diamond Intersection at
Interstate I-89 Exit 16 (“DDI”). This argument lacks a factual foundation. Evidence of the various
traffic impacts caused by limited and full-time operation of the gas station may be relevant to whether
Costco’s operations are consistent with Act 250’s requirements. Accordingly, we will consider the
weight of this evidence in context at trial. We also decline to prospectively limit evidence of Costco’s
compliance with its permit conditions. According to Costco, it plans to introduce such evidence to
argue that these appeals are now moot. It would be premature to exclude evidence which may be
relevant to the issues presented at trial. Similarly, we decline to prospectively limit the admissibility of
evidence in Dockets No. 22-ENV-00084 and 23-ENV-00004. The Court will consider these issues
at trial.
            Turning to Motion B, Vallee and Timberlake seek to preclude Costco from calling undisclosed
or newly disclosed witnesses. According to Vallee, Costco disclosed two new witnesses on October
4, 2023. Vallee asserts that Costco never responded to its subsequent request to depose one of the
new witnesses. In response, Costco says that the sole purpose of these new witnesses is to provide
updates on the DDI construction, and that much of this information was already discussed in prior
motions. Given the conflicting arguments and limited time to address this discovery dispute through
briefings, the Court will address this issue at the beginning of trial next week. Unless the parties can
agree to the scope of this testimony ahead of time, we will hear arguments on this motion at trial.
Therefore, we decline to consider Motion B at this time.
            This case spans years of appeals and cross-appeals, different permitting schemes, and countless
motions. The Court held a hearing in September in which it asked the parties to submit pre-trial
memos on the legal issues remaining in each docket. To date, no party has submitted such a memo.
The Court respectfully repeats its request that each party present a memo on the legal issues it believes
are remaining in each docket and asks that such motions be filed no later than 4:00 pm on Monday,
October 30, 2023.
        At this point, any remaining admissibility issues will be addressed at trial. Further, the Court
encourages the parties to negotiate an opportunity to depose one or more of the witnesses disclosed
on October 4, 2023 on the limited factual issues of the progress of the DDI construction. It is not
unusual as a trial approaches for parties to scramble to complete necessary depositions. The Court
encourages the parties to voluntarily do so here.
        Accordingly, Motion A is DENIED, and we DECLINE TO CONSIDER Motion B at this
time.

        So Ordered.

        Electronically signed at Newfane, Vermont on Friday, October 27, 2023, pursuant to V.R.E.F.
9(d).

Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge
Superior Court, Environmental Division