PLT letter to PB chair re subpoena 091626

Alternatively, they may establish that WEHI/Garden Homes commissioned, financed, reimbursed, directed or otherwise caused some or all those improvements to be pursued in connection with PB 24-01. The documents themselves are the best evidence of which is true. The requested documents therefore bear directly upon who is sponsoring and financing the improvements; who retained and is compensating the professionals whose work supports the application; what contractual obligations Crestmont and WEHI/Garden Homes have undertaken toward one another; and the extent to which PB-26-03 arose from or remains connected to PB 24-01. These questions are particularly material where the engineering justification presented for the signal expressly incorporates traffic from a separate development that the Planning Board has denied. VI. THE REQUEST IS NARROWLY TAILORED This request is not intended as general civil discovery into the private affairs of Crestmont, WEHI/Garden Homes or Langan. It seeks identifiable categories of documents bearing upon the contractual, financial and professional relationships underlying the particular improvements presently before the Board. Nor does this request seek privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work product. If privilege is asserted as to a responsive document, I request production of any reasonably segregable nonprivileged portion and identification of the withheld document sufficiently to permit the basis for the asserted privilege to be understood. VII. PRODUCTION SHOULD PRECEDE FURTHER SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY The requested documents potentially bear upon the factual foundation of the application and upon the examination and cross-examination of witnesses concerning the traffic signal and associated improvements. West Orange Code §25-48.4(a) expressly affords interested parties the right of cross- examination, subject to reasonable limitations consistent with due process. That right cannot be exercised meaningfully with respect to these issues unless material documents concerning the relationships among Crestmont, WEHI/Garden Homes and Langan are disclosed prior to the conclusion of the relevant testimony and of Crestmont’s presentation to the Planning Board. I therefore respectfully request that the subpoena require production sufficiently in advance of the next substantive hearing to afford the Board and

f Crestmont’s presentation to the Planning Board. I therefore respectfully request that the subpoena require production sufficiently in advance of the next substantive hearing to afford the Board and interested parties a reasonable opportunity to review the documents before examination and cross-examination of the relevant witnesses.