Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest v. Chang

• Decision Date: 11 May 2022
• Docket Number: SCPW-21-0000511
• Parties: CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent.

No. SCPW-21-0000511

Supreme Court of Hawaii

May 11, 2022

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1CC051000863)

Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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, 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...