                                 Environmental Court of Vermont
                                        State of Vermont

=============================================================================
                  E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N
=============================================================================

In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club                                Docket No. 149-8-04 Vtec
                                                                   Docket No. 259-12-05 Vtec

Title: Motion to Alter/Reconsider, No. 16

Filed:          December 5, 2008

Filed By: Paul S. Gillies, Attorney for: Appellants Beauchesne

Response filed on 12/22/08 by Cross Appellant Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club
Reply filed on 01/09/09 by Appellant Owen & Katherine Beauchesne

___ Granted                        _X_ Denied                            ___ Other

        Granting a motion to amend or reconsider is “an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” In re Bouldin Camp – Noble Road, No. 278-11-06 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Sept. 13,
2007) (Wright, J.); In re S. Vill. Cmtys., LLC, No. 74-4-05 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Sept. 14,
2006) (Durkin, J.) (citing 11 Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1).
         Appellants’ current motion, requesting that this Court alter or reconsider its November 21, 2008
Interim Decision, repeats arguments that have already been raised and rejected by this Court in our earlier
Decision. We have held on numerous occasions that motions to amend or reconsider “may not be used to
relitigate old matters.” In re S. Vill. Cmtys., LLC, No. 74-4-05 Vtec, slip op. at 2 (citing 11 Wright,
Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1); accord, e.g., In re Boutin PRD
Amendment, No. 93-4-06 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. May 18, 2007) (Wright, J.).
        Appellants’ motion to amend or reconsider is therefore DENIED. As for the Appellants’ request
for a hearing on their motion, it is within our discretion to decide whether to hold such a hearing, and we
decline to do so. Our previous Interim Decision, denying both parties’ request for summary judgment
and staying these proceedings while the Vermont Supreme Court considers a related appeal, was clear.
Appellants have not met the high burden that must be met to cause this Court to revisit an earlier decision.
        To the extent that the Appellants are concerned that they will be bound by Environmental Board
rulings that might be overturned by the Vermont Supreme Court, we remind the parties of our earlier
decision to stay the current proceedings until the Supreme Court issues its ruling. We intend to abide by
whatever ruling the Supreme Court renders in the related appeal.



___________________________________________      ____January 20, 2009__
      Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                           Date
========================================================================
Date copies sent to: ____________               Clerk's Initials _______
Copies sent to:
    Paul S. Gillies, Attorney for Appellants Owen & Katherine Beauchesne
    Rodney E. McPhee, Attorney for Cross Appellant Hale Mtn Fish & Game Club
    Robert E. Woolmington, Attorney for Town of Shaftsbury (FYI only)
