Brouha v. Vermont Wind, LLC et al
Filing
83
OPINION AND ORDER denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration re 79 Order on Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 2/29/2016. (esb)
Case 5:14-cv-00063-gwc Document 83 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 2
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
PAUL BROUHA,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERMONT WIND, LLC, NORTHEAST
WIND PARTNERS II, LLC, FIRST WIND
HOLDINGS, LLC, SUNEDISON, INC., and
TERRAFORM POWER, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FILED
2016 FEB 29 PH 12= '7
Case No. 5:14-cv-00063
OPINION AND ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/CLARIFICATION
(Doc. 80)
Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the court's earlier order (Doc. 79) granting
Defendants' motion to stay (Doc. 66). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration/Clarification (Doc. 80) is DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed this tort action for damages and injunctive relief, alleging that
Defendants' operation of a sixteen-turbine wind electric generation facility (''the Project") causes
a private nuisance on his property. He now asks the court to clarifY its order granting
Defendants' motion to stay the instant action pending resolution of a noise complaint initiated by
Plaintiff before the Vermont Public Service Board ("PSB"). Plaintiff agrees that the primary
issue before the PSB is whether the Project complies with its Certificate of Public Good
("CPG"). But he argues that, based on statements made by the Hearing Officer and defense
counsel at the Prehearing Conference before the PSB, the investigation wi11likely "investigate
issues well beyond whether the Project is operating in compliance with the CPG" and therefore
"well beyond the issues relating to Plaintiffs residence and his claim in the nuisance case."
(Doc. 80 at 2-3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its order that this case be
stayed 'until the PSB resolves the plaintiffs noise complaint," (Doc. 79 at 5), and clarifY that it
can resume once the PSB issues a ruling concerning the Project's CPG compliance and
1
Case 5:14-cv-00063-gwc Document 83 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2
detennines whether Defendants are required to conduct site-specific sound testing at Plaintiff's
residence.
The court denies Plaintiff's request. The standard for granting a motion for
reconsideration is strict, and "reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that
might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's request for further specificity is
unsupported by such concrete data. The PSB investigation seeks to determine whether the
Project complies with the CPO, a technical issue bearing directly on elements of Plaintiff's
nuisance claim. Plaintiff contends it would not be relevant to his complaint if the PSB decides,
as part of its present investigation, to clarify the prospective nature of the Project's noise
monitoring standards. He submits that his complaint is dependent only upon the Project's
compliance with previously established protocols. However, the Vermont Department of Public
Service ("DPS") has explained to the PSB that the Project's current monitoring protocols are
insufficiently clear for evaluating CPO compliance. (Doc. 79 at 2-3.) Therefore, if the PSB
determines that it must clarifY the sound standards in order to assess CPO compliance, it is likely
to do so before asking Defendants to conduct site-specific testing at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff
has conceded that the instant action should not resume until Defendants have conducted such
testing (or CPO compliance has been otherwise detennined). (Doc. 80 at 3.)
The court is mindful that the PSB's investigation may expand to consider Project-related
issues that are truly unrelated to Plaintiff's noise complaint, but at the present time that is just a
hypotheticaL See Ver Mont, Vermont Sheffield Wind Brouha PSB Prehearing Conference,
YouTube (Jan. 20, 2016), https://youtu.be/zvNOoOL71zs at 33:25-34:06. Ifthat were to occur,
Plaintiff may file a motion to lift the stay as soon as the PSB resolves all matters pertaining to his
noise complaint even if its investigation remains otherwise ongoing. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc.
80) is DENIED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this 29th day of February, 2016.
C'<=:::> -
Oeoffrey W. Crawford, Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?