2024-09-25 Appellant's Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum, Exhibit 1-2

Home

• Copies of all documents, communications, and files relating or referring to I`o Processing, I`o Processing's submissions to DPW in 2022, or DPW's denial of I`o Processing's request for an agricultural exemption under HRS §46-88, including, without limitation, emails (internal and external) authored by Kelly Wilson, Joel Fitzgerald, Kehau Dumaguin, Pomai Pokipala, Julann Sonomura, and any other DPW employee involved with the file. • Copies of past and present policies,procedures, memorandums, guidelines, criterion, or other materials used by DPW to assess and apply agricultural exemptions under HRS §46-88, including drafts. • Copies of all decisions on agricultural exemptions under HRS §46-88 issued by DPW (both approvals and denials) from January 2022 through present. • All emails relating or referring to Nichole Kanda, including any authored by Kelly Wilson, Joel Fitzgerald, Kehau Dumaguin, Pomai Pokipala, Julann Sonomura, and any other DPW employee involved with the file. The Hawaii Supreme Court has made clear that the opportunity to subpoena documents is an important part of an appellant's rights in a contested case hearing: "[A] contested case hearing affords parties extensive procedural protections similar to those afforded parties in a civil bench trial before a judge . . . [tJhese protections include the opportunity to issue subpoenas for witnesses to testify under oath or produce documents[.]" Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land& Nat. Res., 136 Haw. 376, 391, 363 P.3d 224, 239 (2015) (emphasis added). The evidence identified by I`o Processing is narrowly tailored to allow it and the Board to assess whether DPW's decision was "arbitrary and capricious," or alternatively, was reasonable and based on objective standards applied equally to all applicants. DPW's complete file (including 2 4871-5206-8494.1.071717-00001