The legal fireworks over the Thirty Meter Telescope are expected to start up again Monday as retired Judge Riki May Amano called a pre-conference hearing in Honolulu for the attorneys representing all parties.

Three days after being officially handed the job of hearings officer, Amano on Monday scheduled the hearing to discuss issues regarding the upcoming replay of the Mauna Kea project’s contested case hearing.

The pre-conference hearing will be held at noon Monday at the state Board of Land and Natural Resources building on Punchbowl Street. It’s unclear whether it will be open to the public.

The contested case hearing, ordered anew after the state Supreme Court nullified the project’s construction permit over due-process issues in December, is supposed to be held on Hawaii island.

But this particular pre-conference hearing is scheduled on Oahu “for efficiency since all counsels appear to practice in Honolulu,” according to Amano’s order.

At the top of the agenda: the location of the pre-conference hearing. If Amano deems any objections appropriate, the conference might be relocated to Hilo, the order said.

Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman, attorney for the petitioners Mauna Kea Hui, said he was surprised to receive the latest order so soon.

“We haven’t even had an opportunity to appear before the Land Board,” he said. “It’s a very unique way of proceeding in any tribunal.”

Wurdeman filed a response to Amano, informing her that he is expected to begin a trial Monday. But she replied in a filing Tuesday that the meeting will be short, during lunch, and there might be a little flexibility on the start time, if necessary.

“I intentionally set the conference for the noon hour hoping that any possible conflicts in calendaring might accommodate a short meeting to help me get on track with the contested case hearing process,” Amano said.

Wurdeman previously filed objections to the way the contested case is being handled, among other things, saying the board is violating the state’s open-meeting law in making decisions behind closed doors. But state attorneys have countered that the law does not apply to this particular proceeding.

In her order Monday, Amano, a former Hawaii island circuit judge, said attorneys should be prepared to discuss a variety of issues, including the official record, the parties involved, anticipated pre-hearing motions, a hearings schedule and other procedural and logistical matters.

The TMT International Observatory Board, developer and eventual operator of the $1.4 billion observatory, has formally asked to become a party in the contested case hearing, saying it has the most to lose and therefore should be given a seat at the table.

While Wurdeman agrees that TMT should be a party to the case, the status should be granted only after TMT reapplies for the project’s conservation district use permit, he said. Up to now the University of Hawaii at Hilo has been the applicant on behalf of TMT.

The attorney said that if TMT is allowed into the contested case as a party without being the applicant, other parties should be allowed in as well, including those who conduct traditional cultural practices on the mountain.

The state Supreme Court ordered the new contested case hearing after ruling that the BLNR violated the state Constitution when it approved the project’s permit prior to holding the hearing.