ROW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, June 10, 2025; 5:00 p.m.

Administration Building; Conference Room A
One Capitol Hill; Providence, RI

MINUTES

 

Subcommittee Members Present
Raymond Coia, Chair
Ronald Gagnon
Patricia Reynolds

Staff Present
Jeffrey Willis, Executive Director
Laura Miguel, Deputy Director
Anthony DeSisto, Legal Counsel
Mark Hartmann, Legal Counsel Asst

 

Chair Coia called meeting to order 5:14 pm.

1. Approval of Minutes for April 8, 2025

Motion: Mr. Gagnon
Second: Ms. Reynolds
Motion was carried on unanimous voice vote.

2. Staff Report

None.

3. Before Subcommittee for Discussion and Action In the Matter of Spring Avenue Extension:

3. Before Subcommittee for Discussion and Action In the Matter of Spring Avenue Extension

1. RI Attorney General Proponent’s Motion to Assign to Hearing
1a. WFD Objection to Proponent’s Motion to Assign to Hearing

Attorney DeSisto explained that the motion to assign to hearing has been pending and asked Attorney Boots if she wanted to go forward. Attorney Boots asked to hold until after the other issues were decided.

Attorney Farside addressed the Subcommittee and asked that the motion be taken up in order as he became aware of a document two hour prior to the meeting, a 1940 town council report that postdates the supposed 1939 dedication of this right-of-way according to the proponents. The 1940 Town Council report lists the Westerly ROW but does not list Spring Avenue Extension. Attorney Farside stated that he did not receive this document in discovery despite asking for it. Attorney Farside stated that work will be needed to be done around the document to better understand its meaning. Attorney Farside did not have background on the document as of yet. Attorney Farside stated that they came upon it attached to meeting minutes of a 2023 town council meeting.

Attorney Farside explained that he felt the expert witnesses needed to be examined at a deposition on this document which may have an impact on what their opinions are and if the document changes their opinions. The outcome could obviate the need to go forward with a hearing.

Attorney Farside stated that the document being in the possession of the Town and possible the AG’s office without it being provided prejudices the WFD and asked for the opportunity for follow up and discovery.

Attorney O’Toole on behalf of the Town of Westerly addressed the Council stating that she had not seen the document. Attorney O'Toole stated that the Town of Westerly provided a list of all of the Town Council meetings that did discuss the Spring Avenue Extension, all of the documents are listed on the ClerkBase website and are easily accessible. Attorney O’Toole stated that members of the public often use handouts in their presentations to the Council and that document could be one of them and it cannot be properly authenticated as a document that belongs to the Town of Westerly.

Attorney Rubin added that he had not seen the document and attested to the fact that it would be difficult for the Town of Westerly to know every document in the two full levels of books containing documents.

Attorney Boots stated that the AG’s office has not seen the document as of yet and that she did not believe it was in their possession.

Anthony Palazzolo asked to speak on the document as a percipient witness.

Attorney DeSisto addressed the subcommittee stating that there is a document purported to be from the Town of Westerly that may be used to impeach expert witnesses and that he is not sure a deposition is needed, can be done at a hearing. Attorney DeSisto reminded the parties that this was not a court proceeding, it is an administrative procedure.

Attorney Farside stated that hearings are time consuming and this document could end the statutory dedication theory and cut the hearing in half by negating the need for particular witnesses, lay or expert.

Chair Coia asked if the party would be prejudiced if the subcommittee did not allow the continuance for deposition. Attorney Farside stated that the witnesses would be Mr. Priestly, Mr. Shay and Mr. DiOrio, all of whom are witnesses for Ms. Contrata and the AG’s office.

Attorney Rubin stated that there are two reasons why it would not affect Mr. Priestly’s testimony, the first being that the document is not a recorded document so it would not be in the land evidence records. Mr. Priestly is a title attorney, he searches title.

Attorney Rubin further argued that which is in land evidence records and established title can’t be undone by an extra records item. Attorney Rubin agreed that Attorney Farside is free to cross-examine at the hearing

Attorney Rubin addressed the other motion for Mr. Priestly’s communication with Save The Bay which has been established that there was only one communication with Save The Bay. The meeting was in early 2023, his report was filed in December of 2023 and is now part of the record. Mr. Priestly’s report was a done deal and Attorney Rubin does not feel that anything said to him by Save The Bay could have altered the report. Attorney Rubin stated that Save The Bay had common-interest privilege because of the financial compensation to help hire the expert witness, Mr. Priestly.

Attorney Farside disagreed with Attorney Rubin’s assessment that Save The Bay had common-interest privilege stating that pay legal fees does not provide attorney-client privilege or common-interest privilege. Attorney Farside stated that they were entitled to discover what was discussed between Mr. Priestly and Save The Bay.

Nothing further from Attorney Rubin.

Back and forth between Mr. Palazzolo and Attorney DeSisto regarding the newly uncovered document.

Attorney O’Toole began by stating that the document does not state what the scop of the work was that this committee supposedly did to look at rights-of-way. Attorney O’Toole stated that just because Spring Avenue Extension is not on the list doesn’t mean it wasn’t accepted by the Town of Westerly as a Public ROW. Attorney O’Toole stated that the report came out after a lot of the plats that are relevant to this case were recorded, stamped by the Highway Board, recorded.

Attorney DeSisto asked if the document was part of the map street ordinance. Attorney Farside stated he did not think so. Attorney Farside stated that Louis Rossie was one of the authors of the document and the author of the 1939 map cited by Attorney Rubin.

Attorney Boots stated that the AG’s office did not have anything to add

Attorney Farside stated that there were a number of outstanding items that the WFD was waiting for from the AG’s office – the documents from their privilege log.

Attorney Boots stated that the standard for assigning to hearing is that discovery is substantially complete, which in her opinion, discovery is substantially complete. Attorney Boots stated that it has been years getting to this point and that scheduling for September should be doable, and that any outstanding concerns can be wrapped up within the next few months.

Attorney Farside stated that the WFD sees the situation differently. Attorney Farside stated that the WFD is concerned with doing this process correctly; litigating the matter to the point where we know what we are dealing with, so that when it does go to hearing, it can be done efficiently and correctly, not without skipping over discovery that should be finished.

Attorney Boots responded, stating that they AGs office is not looking to impede discovery, just asking to set a time limit.

Attorney Farside stated that they could finish discovery within the few months, but there is the matter to compel against the AGs office and the outcome of the APRA litigation which is still awaiting a decision, which makes completion of discovery difficult.

Attorney O’Toole agreed with AG and stated that it was June of 2024 that the Subcommittee asked all parties to submit transcripts, stipulated facts and stipulated exhibits, so we could be ready for a hearing – the Town of Westerly is ready to go forward.

Attorney Rubin stated that there isn’t anything remaining that can’t be accomplished before September.

Attorney Rubin stated that he did not think the rules allowed for a motion for summary judgement. It is not mentioned in the Administrative Procedures Act.

Attorney DeSisto stated that the motion or summary judgement was for another day.

Attorney DeSisto stated that the proposal from the Attorney General is to set the matter down for a hearing in September which gives plenty of time to conclude discovery matters.

Attorney DeSisto recommended, based on the timeline proposed by the Attorney General, to grant the motion and make arrangements in the town of Westerly to have the hearings based on everyone’s schedule.

Chair Coia asked for a motion from the Subcommittee members.

Mr. Gagnon motioned to assign the matter to hearing based on the Attorney General’s timeline and to find a date in September to schedule the first hearing. Seconded by Ms. Reynolds.

No discussion.

Chair Coia called a Roll Call vote:

Mr. Gagnon Aye

Ms. Reynolds Aye

Chair Coia Aye

Motion carried.

Ms. Reynolds made a motion to delegate staff to find a location in the Town of Westerly for these hearings and to further coordinate dates and times based upon the selection of the site. Mr. Gagnon seconded the motion.

Chair Coia called a Roll Call vote:

Mr. Gagnon Aye

Ms. Reynolds Aye

Chair Coia Aye

Motion carried.

2. Weekapaug Fire District - Motion to Compel Privilege Log and Documents
2a. RIAG Objection to Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

Attorney Farside read pronouncements from the Rhode Island Supreme Court about attorney-client privilege. Attorney Farside stated that the Attorney General was withholding 2,367 documents from the WFD claiming various types of privilege.

Attorney Farside stated that they were asking for documents that have been disclosed by the AG to third parties, especially entities like Save The Bay to the general public. There is no argument that these are privileged.

Attorney Farside clarified that there was 819 documents being withheld by the AG from the WFD despite that they were external to the AG’s office. Attorney Farside stated that the law is clear that once a document is disclosed to a third party, the privilege no longer applies – called waiver.

Attorney Farside stated that the burden is on the AG’s office to establish that common-interest privilege applies. Save The Bay admitted in deposition that they had no common-interest privilege agreement with other parties.

Attorney Farside stated that they await a decision from Judge Raspallo in the APRA litigation and the decision is relevant to this issue.

Attorney DeSisto asked if the case pending in Superior Court was about the 2000 documents. Attorney Farside confirmed it was.

Attorney Boots stated they believed that the decision will be relevant and are hoping for a decision to come any day from Justice Raspallo.

Attorney Boots stated that the documents related to the public or from the public were attachments to protective documents so the proponents do have common-interest privilege.

Attorney Boots stated that the Subcommittee, the courts, and the WFD has referred to the Town of Westerly, the AG’s office and Ms. Contrata collectively as the proponents. There is clearly common interest.

Attorney Boots stated that documents that are attached to emails are protected within that common interest of work-product privilege

Attorney DeSisto asked if legal issues being discussed are subject of the case that is currently in order for decision by the Superior Court.

Attorney Boots stated that she was not the attorney involved in the APRA litigation, but she understood there to be significant overlap.

Attorney Farside stated that there was substantial overlap.

Attorney DeSisto stated it was premature for the Subcommittee to decide on this matter at this time and recommended that the Subcommittee continue this for a status next month. Attorney DeSisto clarified that it was the entire motion to compel.

Ms. Reynolds moved to the continue with a second from Mr. Gagnon.

Chair Coia called a Roll Call vote:

Mr. Gagnon Aye

Ms. Reynolds Aye

Chair Coia Aye

Motion to continue approved.

3. Weekapaug Fire District – Notice of Intent to File Dispositive Motion

4. Caroline Contrata’s Motion for Protective Order Against the Continued Deposition of Joseph Priestly
4a. WFD Objection to Contrata’s Motion for Protective Order Against the Continued Deposition of Joseph Priestley

Copied from above: Attorney Rubin addressed the other motion for Mr. Priestly’s communication with Save The Bay which has been established that there was only one communication with Save The Bay. The meeting was in early 2023, his report was filed in December of 2023 and is now part of the record. Mr. Priestly’s report was a done deal and Attorney Rubin does not feel that anything said to him by Save The Bay could have altered the report. Attorney Rubin stated that Save The Bay had common-interest privilege because of the financial compensation to help hire the expert witness, Mr. Priestly.

New:

Attorney Farside confirmed that his motion concerned Mr. Priestly’s meeting with Save They Bay in the Spring of 2024.

Attorney Rubin confirmed that there was a motion for renewal of protective order.

Attorney Rubin asked that if the Subcommittee agrees to depose Mr. Priestly that it be done as in one deposition.

Attorney DeSisto stated that what was before the Subcommittee was a motion for protective order on a deposition on this discrete issue of the conversation with Save The Bay lawyer. Attorney DeSisto stated that he was not sure it is relevant based on discussions this evening. Attorney DeSisto advised the Subcommittee to grant the motion for protective order as to that one discrete line of inquiry.

Mr. Gagnon made a motion to grant the motion for protection order as to that one line of inquiry. Seconded by Ms. Reynolds.

Chair Coia called a Roll Call vote:

Mr. Gagnon Aye

Ms. Reynolds Aye

Chair Coia Aye

Motion carried.

6. Adjournment:

Motion: Mr. Gagnon

Second: Ms. Reynolds

Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

Meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted,
Lisa A. Turner, Recording Secretary

 

CALENDAR INDEX