Laserfiche WebLink
of the Board: here, March 22-23, 2017.2 If, (as Snowcap specifically states in the above -entitled <br />quote from its Response) the hearing on March 22"d is a de novo hearing conducted under C.R.S. <br />24-4-105, then the hearing will be subject to vacation and remand on judicial review. <br />C.R.S. 24-4-105 undeniably allows for discovery between the parties: generally meaning <br />that each party submits requests and allows a 30 day response time. Section 24-4-105 allows for <br />the Board's issuance of subpoenas: requiring submission of requests to the Board (in regulatory <br />proceedings, attorneys may not generally sign the subpoenas themselves); sending copies of the <br />requests to opposing parties, who may then interpose objections; resolving any such objections; <br />signing and issuance of the subpoena by the Board; and timely service (ten days before <br />appearance?) upon the subpoenaed entity or person. Generally, both discovery and subpoenas <br />would require 45-60 days for completion. This is more time than is allotted for the <br />"expeditiously scheduled" hearing under the terms of Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii)! <br />Here, the Office of the Division issued its Proposed Decision on January 30, 2017. <br />Fontanari filed its Comments on February 6, 2017 and requested a hearing. By public notice on <br />its website, the Board conducted its "regularly scheduled business meeting" on February 23, <br />2017. This was 17 days after Fontanari requested the hearing and filed its Comments. Under <br />Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii), the hearing would have been conducted on February 23`d. Importantly, <br />there would not have been any time in which to request subpoenas, conduct discovery and then <br />prepare for hearing under the terms of C.R.S. 24-4-105. In short, the Board could not have <br />simultaneously complied with Section 24-4-105 and its own Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) <br />2 Notably, the Board, itself, has never provided these dates — or any alternate dates - to the parties. AGG <br />Schultz, who represents the Division, provided the dates: perhaps, in a well -meant and courteous effort to <br />advise the non -agency parties of the Board's future agendas. In fact, the Board (represented by AAG <br />Roberts) has not issued any Order scheduling the hearing for any particular date or location. <br />3 <br />