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
Processing, then that would be relevant to showing that DPW's treatment of I`o Processing was <br /> arbitrary. On the other hand, if DPW treated all applicants consistently and according to uniform <br /> standards, then that would tend to show that their denial of I`o Processing's exemption request <br /> was reasonable and objective. DPW's decision on contemporaneous exemptions will provide the <br /> context that I`o Processing and the Board need to understand the legitimacy of DPW's decision. <br /> Third, DPW's internal (non-privileged) emails are relevant to whether its approval <br /> process was "characterized by or guided by unpredictable or impulsive" standards of review. <br /> See Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). I`o Processing believes that DPW made shifting, <br /> inconsistent decisions -- from verbal assurances that an exemption would apply in February <br /> 2022, to an outright denial in January 2023, to at least six different sets of criterion for an <br /> agricultural exemption between February 2023 and July 2024. Put simply, DPW created a <br /> moving target that no applicant for an agricultural exemption, including I`o Processing, could <br /> realistically plan for or meet. If that allegation is borne out by evidence, then the Board would <br /> be empowered to conclude that DPW's pre-approval process relied on"unclear" and incalculable <br /> standards and was therefore arbitrary and capricious. See Connections New Century Pub. <br /> Charter Sch., 146 Haw. at 156, 456 P.3d at 1003. DPW's internal (non-privileged) emails will <br /> provide valuable information on its decision-making process, which will show whether it had a <br /> rational basis for its decisions. <br /> To have a fair opportunity to challenge DPW's denial in the hearing before the Board, I`o <br /> Processing needs access to basic documents and communications in DPW's possession <br /> concerning the denial. The information sought is narrowly-tailored and reasonable, as DPW's <br /> counsel recognized during the pre-hearing conference. It is much narrower than information that <br /> would typically be requested and exchanged by parties in discovery in a civil action in court. <br /> 13 <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.