Roystan Ridge Extraction

State of Vermont Superior Court—Environmental Division ====================================================================== ENTRY REGARDING MOTION ====================================================================== In re Roystan Ridge Extraction Permit Docket No. 121-7-10 Vtec (Appeal from Town of Newbury DRB) Title: Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 7) Filed: November 26, 2012 Filed By: Appellant Sandra J. Soseos Response filed on January 14, 2013by Applicants James B. Roystan and Alma Roystan Granted _ X_ Denied Other This Court may only grant a motion to compel discovery after the moving party has shown that they have served a specific discovery request upon another party, that the other party has refused to satisfy the specific discovery request, and that the moving party has “attempted to confer [with the other party] about the discovery issues between them in detail in a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy, and to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution.” V.R.C.P. 26(h).

We are unaware of whether Appellant Soseos has taken any of these steps, since we have no certifications from her. Rule 26 contemplates that parties will first make good faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before asking that a court intervene or order conformance with a specific discovery request. Id. Without any representations that Appellant Soseos has complied with Rule 26, we must DENY her motion.

_________________________________________ February 6, 2013 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date ============================================================================= Date copies sent: ____________ Clerk's Initials: _______ Copies sent to: Attorney Colin Robinson for Appellees James B. Roystan and Alma Roystan Appellant Sandra J. Soseos Attorney Gavin A. Reid for Interested Person Town of Newbury