My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-09-25 Appellant's Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum, Exhibit 1-2
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Future Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2023-000065 I'O PROCESSING (DPW)
>
2024-09-25 Appellant's Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum, Exhibit 1-2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2024 9:57:21 AM
Creation date
9/26/2024 9:53:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• All emails relating or referring to Nichole Kanda, including any authored by <br /> Kelly Wilson, Joel Fitzgerald, Kehau Dumaguin, Pomai Pokipala, Julann <br /> Sonomura, and any other DPW employee involved with the file. <br /> The first request seeks DPW's complete file relating to the handling of I`o Processing's <br /> agricultural exemption application and denial of the same. Board of Appeals Rules of Practice <br /> and Procedures Rule 3-13(h), titled Record on Appeal,provides: "In all appeals of Director <br /> decisions before the Board, the entire record or file from the Director shall be submitted to the <br /> Board and other parties." By its plain language, Rule 3-13 requires DPW to submit its "entire <br /> record or file" as the record on appeal. DPW indisputably has not submitted its "entire record or <br /> file" on I`o Processing's application for an agricultural exemption. DPW has submitted only <br /> three documents: (1) I`o Processing's Declarations of Compliance for an agricultural exemption <br /> under HRS § 46-88; (2) an email chain where the latest email is dated January 13, 2023; and (3) <br /> an email chain where the latest email is dated February 10, 2023. Therefore, I`o Processing <br /> requests issuance of a subpoena for the remainder of DPW's file, including"documents, <br /> communications, or files" generated by DPW in connection with their handling of I`o <br /> Processing's application for an agricultural exemption <br /> The second, third, and fourth requests seek evidence that I`o Processing needs to prove <br /> that DPW's denial was "arbitrary and capricious." "Arbitrary" is defined as "depending on <br /> individual discretion; of, relating to, or involving a determination made without consideration of <br /> or regard for facts, circumstances, fixed rules, or procedures." See Black's Law Dictionary (12th <br /> ed. 2024). "Capricious" is defined as "characterized by or guided by unpredictable or impulsive <br /> behavior" and"contrary to the evidence or established rules of law." Id. Relevant here, an <br /> administrative agency's decision is arbitrary or capricious where the standard applied by the <br /> 11 <br /> 4871-5206-8494.1.071717-00001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.