Court Opinion

ID: 9900765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 13:11:53.223526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:17.444072
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division                                                 Docket No. 22-ENV-00061
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

                                O’Brien Farm Road, LLC Appeal

                                      DECISION ON MOTIONS
  Title:         Motion to Compel (Motion: 3)
  Filer:         Matthew B. Byrne, Esq.
  Filed Date:    September 6, 2023
  Vermont Natural Resources Board Opposition to Motion to Compel filed by Alison Milbury Stone,
       Esq. on September 27, 2023.
  Applicant’s Reply to Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel filed by Matthew B. Byrne,
         Esq. on October 12, 2023.
  The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
          This is an appeal of a District #4 Commission (the Commission) decision imposing a
  $90,640.25 permit application fee for a minor amendment application on O’Brien Farm Road, LLC
  (Applicant) in relation to a mixed-use development in South Burlington, Vermont, including 118
  units of housing and six residential/mixed-use lots (the Project). The minor amendment is for the
  construction of parts of the Project, including two 47-unit buildings on two previously approved
  lots.
          In a March 9, 2023 Decision, this Court concluded that the Commission could levy a fee
  for the application pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6083a. See In re O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, No. 22-ENV-
  00061 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Mar. 9, 2023) (Walsh, J.). In so concluding, we noted that the
  purpose of Act 250 permit fees was to allow the State to recoup costs associated with
  administering Act 250. Id. at 8. Having reached this conclusion, the amount of the fee remains
  at issue.
          The parties are working through discovery. Presently before the Court is Applicant’s
  motion to compel the Vermont Natural Resources Board (NRB) to respond to certain discovery

                                                                                        Page 1 of 4
requests. Specifically, Applicant’s motion addresses Document Requests 4 through 6 and
Interrogatories 2 through 4 and 16. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
                                                      Discussion
         Generally, the allowable scope of discovery in litigation is very broad, with parties being
permitted to make inquires “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” V.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). Further, even if a
discovery request addresses or targets information that would be inadmissible at trial, the
discovery may be allowable, “if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
         Prior to addressing the specific discovery requests at issue, we first address the parties
dispute as the relevancy of the sought information. In general, the requests seek information
and documents related to the scope of the NRB’s review of the pending application, including the
fee waiver request. NRB argues that this information is irrelevant, as the only relevant pieces of
evidence in this action are the original master plan application and the current application and
that, in the Court’s de novo review, these documents are all that the Court would need to
determine the reasonability of the fee imposed.
         While we note that this Court reviews the appeal de novo, Applicant in this matter has the
burden of proof “to show that [the fee] is excessive in relation to the cost of the regulatory
services.” Pollak v. City of Burlington, 158 Vt. 650, 651 (1992). Thus, the amount of regulatory
services that the NRB performed is directly relevant to this appeal. Conversely, the specific
content of the services is irrelevant because the fee is related to the cost of the services, not the
content thereof.1 Thus, there can be information and/or documents outside of the scope of the
two applications that could be relevant in this action.

         1
           In reaching this conclusion, the Court need not fully address the parties’ dispute related to the applicability
of deliberative process privilege. We do note it is unclear whether Vermont has adopted the deliberative process
privilege. See Lanpher v. Town of Morristown, No. 20-2-Lecv, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2017) (Carleson, J.);
see also Prof’l Nurses Serv. v. Smith, No. 732-12-04 Wncv (Vt. Super. Ct. July 14, 2005) (Katz, J.). Given the Vermont
Supreme Court’s decision in Rueger v. Nat. Res. Bd., 2012 VT 33, 191 Vt. 429, however, in the applying public records
law to prevent the production of quasi-judicial deliberative material of the NRB, it appears likely to this Court that
the privilege would be extended in the context of discovery. Given the Court’s conclusion on the scope of relevancy

                                                                                                             Page 2 of 4
        Having reached this conclusion, we address the specifically cited discovery requests.
        Interrogatory 2 asks the NRB to “[i]dentify how much time each person or entity identified
in response to Interrogatory #1 spent working on the O’Brien Amendment Application.” The NRB
objects but responds stating that the NRB does not have a way to track hours worked on any given
application. The Court fails to see how it can compel the NRB to answer this interrogatory
substantially more beyond what was provided. The NRB does not retain a system to track
employee hours on an application basis. This is an answer to this interrogatory. Applicant would
prefer there to be a quantified number associated with its application and such an hourly tracking
system could be very helpful in appeals such as this. There is not, however, and Applicant will
need to build its case using other means.2
        Interrogatory 3 asks the NRB to “[i]dentify all documents related to the O’Brien
Amendment Application.” This is substantially similar to Document Requests 4 through 6.3
Because the NRB does not maintain a system to track the hours it spends on an application, the
existence of documents could be evidence of the amount of regulatory services rendered.4 Even
so, the content of those documents is irrelevant to the amount of regulatory services performed
and is potentially privileged. Thus, the NRB must respond to these requests. That said, given the
needs of the case, the potential privilege concerns, we conclude that such a response can be akin
to a privilege log, identifying the document, its type and length or producing the redacted
documents themselves.
        Interrogatory 4 asks the NRB to “[i]dentify what new work was done for the O’Brien
Amendment Permit.” The NRB objects to the request, but notwithstanding the objection,
provides a narrative understanding of the work that was performed. This narrative is relevant,

in this appeal and its order set forth below, the NRB need not provide documents or information that specifically
address the substance of its deliberations in this action.
        2
          We note that the NRB has generally described the administrative requirements of reviewing the pending
application in its response to Interrogatory 4.
        3
          These Requests seek (4) “Any Documents related to the level of effort put into the O’Brien Amendment
Permit;” (5) “Any Documents related to the O’Brien Amendment Permit, including without limitation any emails
concerning the O’Brien Amendment Permit or the request to waive or reduce the fee;” and (6) “Any Documents
used or relied upon in answering the Interrogatories.”
        4
        We note, however, that some review may not generate any documentation and therefore the amount of
documents generated may not itself be dispositive in this case.

                                                                                                     Page 3 of 4
particularly due to the lack of internal time keeping at the NRB, to understand the scope of work
performed. To the extent that the NRB can provide further information as to the specific tasks
performed in reviewing the amendment application without overstepping into the deliberative
privilege, the Court directs the NRB to do so.
       Finally, Interrogatory 16 asks the NRB to “[d]etail what the [Commission] considered when
it applied 10 V.S.A. § 6086a(f).” This inquiry is not relevant on appeal. Applicant’s burden in this
matter is to demonstrate that the fee was excessive in relation to the costs of regulatory services
performed. Pollak, 158 Vt. at 651. Thus, the purpose of this Court’s review is to examine the
reasonableness of the fee imposed, not the substance of the deliberative process by which the
NRB determined the scope of the fee waiver. The NRB has provided and, as set forth herein, will
provide additional information as to the scope of the regulatory services it provided relative to
the application. The NRB need not provide substantive information as to the considerations it
made when reviewing the waiver application.
       The Court notes that Applicant’s motion also addresses guidance for depositions.
Appropriate scope of inquiry would include the amount of agency time spent on this application
and what tasks were required to complete review. Inappropriate topics would include those
related to the substance of the deliberative process and the substance of considerations made in
relation to the fee waiver.
                                            Conclusion
       For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. The NRB shall provide subsequent responses as directed herein by November 22, 2023.

Electronically signed October 25, 2023 in Hyde Park, Vermont pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(D).

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge
Superior Court, Environmental Division

                                                                                         Page 4 of 4