Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest v. Chang ( 2022 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
11-MAY-2022
09:24 AM
Dkt. 50 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
________________________________________________________________
CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent.
________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 1CC051000863)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Civil Beat Law Center
for the Public Interest’s petition for writ of prohibition and
writ of mandamus, the respondent judge’s answer to the petition,
petitioner’s response, the respondent judge’s reply, the amicus
brief, and the record, it appears that the requested
extraordinary writ is not warranted at this juncture. See
Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d
58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy
. . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting
beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction.”); Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai‘i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless
the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to
relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the
alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; such a writ is
meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who has exceeded
his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest
abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly
before the court under circumstances in which he or she has a
legal duty to act).
Petitioner initially sought a writ of prohibition and
writ of mandamus related to the inability to publicly access the
case file in Case No. 1CC051000863. On April 11, 2022, the
respondent judge entered an “Order Removing Security Designation
for Civil No. 05-1-0863-05.” Redacted copies of documents filed
in Civil No. 05-1-0863-05 are now accessible by the public,
including petitioner.
Petitioner has subsequently modified its request for
relief before this court, in part, to request that the
respondent judge be prohibited from enforcing an order sealing
the complaint 1 and defendants’ names in Civil No. 05-1-0863-05,
1
Petitioner also notes that the case docket indicates that the circuit
court no longer has the underlying complaint based on an order that was
2
and enforcing a gag order entered against petitioner.
Petitioner specifically asserts that the respondent judge has
failed to comply with the procedural and substantive standards
for keeping the complaint sealed. The respondent judge does not
dispute that the actions taken in 2005 did not conform with O‘ahu
Publ’ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawai‘i 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014) and
Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawai‘i 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018), but
explains, in reply to petitioner’s response, the factors he
considered and the discretionary balancing he undertook in
giving paramount protection to the plaintiff’s constitutional
right to privacy against a third party’s qualified right of
access to court records in a civil case. The respondent judge
also clarified that his order does not preclude petitioner from
seeking access to court records or publishing any motions or
related documents and orders as long as the publication does not
disclose the name and identify of any of the parties in the
instant case. These averments and rationale, however, are not
provided in any written findings in the underlying case.
At this time, given the developments in this matter
and petitioner’s recently modified request for relief, the more
appropriate course of action is for petitioner to seek relief,
issued in 2005, which ordered the complaint be expunged and returned to
plaintiff’s counsel. This court notes that such an expungement and purging
of a court document is not general practice.
3
as modified, in the underlying case, and for the respondent
judge, after all parties are heard on the matter, to thereafter
enter formal written findings consistent with constitutional
standards and case law, specifically Ahn and Grube.
Accordingly,
It is ordered that the petition for writ of
prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice
consistent with this order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 11, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
4