Sugarloaf Alliance
Preservation * Smarter Growth * Transparency in Government
Data Center Referendum Lawsuits
In connection with Sugarloaf Alliance’s education initiatives to support preservation of the Sugarloaf Mountain area and to encourage transparency in government, Sugarloaf Alliance is making available to the public the public court documents in the case whereby data center developers and operators are challenging the inclusion of the Referendum on the November ballot.
Due to the complexity of the filings, this web page has two parts:
Part 1 – In order to clarify the position of the opposing sides, Sugarloaf Alliance selected representative court filings of the two sides. One side includes the petitioners who are data center developers and property owners: Quantum joined by Windridge, Frederick Data Center Company, NDR and Rowen. The other side includes the Referendum Committee and the Board of Elections. This section is for the non-lawyer who wants an abbreviated version of the case. It sets forth the major issues in the case and provides an overall understanding of the lawsuits.
Part 2 – This section includes all the court filings available to Sugarloaf Alliance at this time. It is for lawyers or others who have experience reading court documents.
There is a link to each document.
Part 1 - Representative Filings From Both Sides Showing Their Positions
II. Quantum vs. Elections Board and Committee – Motion to Stay
III. Committee’s Response to Motion to Stay
IV. Committee’s Response to Petition for Judicial Review (To be uploaded when available)
Part 2 - Index of all the Court Filings Available to Sugarloaf Alliance at this time
I. Petitions Filed
A. Quantum vs. Elections Board and Committee – Petition for Judicial Review
B. Quantum vs. Elections Board and Committee – Motion to Stay
C. Windridge Properties (Windridge) vs. Elections Board and Committee – Petition for Judicial Review
E. NDR Properties (NDR) vs. Elections Board and Committee – Petition for Judicial Review
F. Rowan Frederick LLCs (Rowan) vs. Elections Board – Petition for Judicial Review
Note that Quantum, Windridge, Frederick Data Center Company, NDR and Rowan are collectively “Petitioners”
II. Consolidation of Cases
A. Petitioners’ Motion to Consolidate Cases
III. Response by Committee and Elections Board to Petition for Judicial Review and Motion to Stay
A. Committee Motion to Extend Time to Answer Quantum’s Petition for Judicial Review
B. Committee Motion to Extend Time to Answer Quantum’s Motion to Stay
C. Committee Motion to Extend Time to Answer NDR’s Petition for Judicial Review
D. Committee Response to Petitioners’ Motion to Stay
E. Committee Response to Petitioners’ Petition for Judicial Review (To be uploaded when available)
F. Elections Board’s Motion for Protective Order
G. Elections Board's Motion to Dismiss
H. Elections Board's Response to Petitioners' Motion to Stay
IV. Various Other Motions and Responses by Petitioners
A. Petitioners’ Motion to Shorten Schedule
B. Petitioners’ Opposition to Committee’s Motion for Protective Order
C. Petitioners’ Opposition to Committee’s Motion to Dismiss Count II
D. Petitioners’ Reply to Committee’s Opposition to Shorten Schedule
E. Petitioners' Motion to Stay Elections Board's Determination for Judicial Review
F. Petitioners' Opposition to Elections Board's Motion to Dismiss
G. Petitioners' Opposition to Committee's Motion to Dismiss
H. Petitioners' Opposition to Committee's Motion to Extend Time to File Answer
V. Discovery
A. Petitioners’ Notice of Deposition of Stephen Black
B. Petitioners’ Request for Production of Documents from Committee