Town of Newmarket v. Jeffrey T. Clay; Jeffrey T. Clay v. Town of Newmarket

In Case No. 2024-0474, Town of Newmarket v. Jeffrey T. Clay; Jeffrey T. Clay v. Town of Newmarket, the court on August 20, 2025, issued the following order: Jeffrey Clay’s objection to the Town of Newmarket’s brief, which we construe as a motion to strike, is denied. Jeffrey Clay’s objection to the Town’s appendix exhibits 7-11, which we also construe as a motion to strike, is denied.

However, given the Town’s implicit acknowledgment that certain emails reproduced on pages 163-71 of its appendix were not presented to the trial court, we decline to consider those emails and they form no part of our decision in this case. See Lake v. Sullivan, 145 N.H. 713, 717 (2001) (“On appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.”).

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct.

R. 20(3). Jeffrey Clay appeals an order of the Superior Court (Schulman, J.), issued following a hearing, granting summary judgment in favor of the Town in this dispute involving claims relative to the Right-to-Know Law, RSA chapter 91- A (2023 & Supp. 2024). Jeffrey Clay advances several arguments on appeal, primarily challenging the trial court’s decision to uphold and enforce the settlement agreement that he had previously agreed to with the Town. As the appealing party, Jeffrey Clay has the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, Jeffrey Clay’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that Jeffrey Clay has not demonstrated reversible error and affirm the court’s decision. See id.; Sup. Ct. R. 25(8).

Lastly, the Town’s request in its brief for an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred on appeal is granted. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23, the Town may file a request for taxation of costs with itemization, and shall submit with any such request an affidavit establishing the amount and reasonableness of any attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. Failure to comply with

the deadline in Rule 23 shall constitute a waiver of the costs and attorney’s fees granted pursuant to this order.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Donovan and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk