Grube v. Trader
| Decision Date | 05 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | SCPW-17-0000927 |
| Parties | Nick GRUBE, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Rom A. TRADER, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Judge, and State of Hawai‘i; Alan Ahn; and Tiffany Masunaga, Respondents. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Robert Brian Black for petitioner
Robyn B. Chun, Honolulu, for respondent judge the Honorable Rom A. Trader
Duane M. Kokesch for respondent State of Hawai‘i
Andrew T. Park for respondent Alan Ahn
William A. Harrison, Honolulu, for respondent Tiffany Masunaga
Petitioner Nick Grube filed a petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus (petition) to obtain access to judicial records and documents related to a circuit court criminal proceeding held on September 9, 2016. These court documents and records were sealed, and have remained sealed, by a series of circuit court orders. The petition also seeks an order prohibiting the circuit court judge from requiring Grube to retain an attorney in order to assert a constitutional right of access to judicial records.
Upon our review of the procedures employed by the circuit court, we conclude that the court did not provide adequate notice and opportunity for interested persons objecting to the sealing to be heard prior to issuing its order and failed to sufficiently articulate the reasoning supporting the order in its findings. In addition, upon reviewing the sealed records and documents, we hold that the substantive requirements for sealing were not met in this case because the record fails to demonstrate a compelling need sufficient to overcome the public’s constitutional right of access.
We further hold that, because the constitutional right of access inheres in every member of the public and Grube asserted this interest as an individual, Grube had a right to represent himself in the unsealing proceedings. The circuit court therefore also erred by refusing to allow Grube to appear pro se and requiring him to obtain counsel.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and order that the circuit court unseal the documents—provided, however, that the effective date of our directive shall be ten days after the filing of this opinion, unless within the ten days the State requests a hearing to provide additional evidence to demonstrate that the documents or some portion thereof must remain sealed to serve a governmental interest of sufficient gravity to overcome the public’s constitutional right of access. Following any such hearing, the circuit court shall promptly prepare specific findings in conformance with the substantive requirements set forth in this opinion if these requirements have been met; otherwise our order shall take immediate effect. We further order that Grube be permitted to represent himself in any further proceedings on this matter.
Alan Ahn, a Honolulu police officer, and Tiffany Masunaga, his girlfriend, were charged by indictment in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) with multiple drug-related offenses on August 26, 2015.1 Ahn has since pleaded no contest and been sentenced to a sixty-day jail term as a condition of a four-year probationary term. By contrast, the public record indicates that Masunaga’s case is still pending as of this filing, and no disposition of the charges is reflected.
On Friday, September 9, 2016, the circuit court held a hearing scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m., the nature and scope of which is not discernible from the public record.2 Following the proceeding, the circuit court entered an order sealing the entire legal file in the case. On September 16, the court filed a second order superseding its September 9 sealing order.
Then, on October 11, 2016, the circuit court issued a third order setting aside its September 9 and September 16 sealing orders. The court concluded that "[u]pon further review ... the prior orders were overly broad in that they resulted in the sealing of the entire legal file pertaining to both Defendants." The court redefined the scope of the previous order to seal "those documents, court minutes, transcripts and other information relating to the September 9, 2016 proceeding," including the two previous orders that it had set aside.
In its October 11 order, the circuit court stated that it had been advised that the proceedings in this case related to potentially one or more ongoing investigations. Without providing further details, the court concluded that public disclosure of the September 9, 2016 proceeding was substantially likely to interfere with these ongoing investigations and that less drastic alternatives to partially sealing the record were not viable to maintain the integrity of the law enforcement operations. The court thus held that the "the public’s right of access must yield to the compelling investigatory needs of law enforcement." The court further directed the State and Masunaga to timely inform it when circumstances change such that rescinding the order would be appropriate.
As a result of the court’s order, all documents and information relating to the September 9, 2016 hearing remained fully sealed and inaccessible to the public, including the two previous sealing orders.3
On September 29, 2017, Grube, a reporter for Honolulu Civil Beat, Inc. (Civil Beat), filed a motion to unseal "whatever documents were sealed" by the October 11, 2016 order.
The motion was based on the "constitutional right of access provided by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution."
A hearing on the motion to unseal was held on October 31, 2017. At the opening of the hearing, Grube identified himself as "Nick Grube, Honolulu Civil Beat." When the court then asked if he was representing Civil Beat’s interest in the matter, Grube responded "Uh-huh." The court explained to Grube that under Hawai‘i law, business entities must be represented by an attorney. Grube objected, stating that he made the motion on his own and would like to proceed pro se. Citing the manner in which the motion had been captioned,4 the court declined to allow Grube to represent himself: "[A]lthough you, yourself, may be partially making this request, it was filed under the caption you, as representing Civil Beat." The court continued the hearing to November 7, 2016, instructed Grube to make inquiries as to whether Civil Beat would retain an attorney, and ordered the State and the defendants to file responses to Grube’s motion to unseal.
Masunaga and Ahn filed statements of no opposition to Grube’s motion. Masunaga indicated that she had not been fully advised by her prior counsel regarding the motion to seal and had not given prior counsel permission to make representations regarding the motion on her behalf. She also stated that she believes the sealing request was made to protect certain individuals related to the prosecutor then assigned to the case, whom her prior counsel was also representing in a separate criminal matter in federal court.
The State filed an opposition to Grube’s motion, arguing that the circuit court properly identified the State’s compelling interest in preserving the integrity of investigations and sufficiently tailored its order to serve that interest. The opposition included a declaration by a deputy prosecuting attorney averring that the investigations identified in the sealing order remained ongoing.5
On November 7, 2017, the court held the continued hearing on the motion to unseal. At the outset of the hearing, Grube, through his counsel, again objected to the circuit court requiring him to retain counsel. Counsel clarified that he was representing Grube in his personal capacity and not Civil Beat, and he further stated that Grube was asserting his personal constitutional right of access. The court responded that the contents of the motion and the manner in which it was captioned led the court to believe Grube was representing Civil Beat’s interests, which only a licensed attorney was permitted to do under relevant Hawai‘i law.
Regarding the unsealing motion, the court engaged the deputy prosecuting attorney appearing for the State in the following colloquy:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
...457 U.S. 596, 604, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); State v. Hashimoto, 47 Haw. 185, 200, 389 P.2d 146, 155 (1963)). Grube, 142 Hawai'i at 422, 420 P.3d at 353. Ahn and Grube, the supreme court examined the right of public access in the context of criminal proceedings. In Ahn, the cou......
-
In re Gonsalves
...and do not foreclose this alternative in the event an objection is filed to challenge the complete sealing of Docket 1. See Grube, 142 Hawai'i at 424, 420 P.3d at 355. As Docket 2, the Petitioner herself asserts that the information contained at pages 2-3, being a Judicial Retention Evaluat......
-
Wagner v. Hiraoka
...in support thereof, and the record, it appears that the respondent judge complied with the procedure set forth in Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawai'i 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018) in addressing the sealing issue, an appeal is pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals (CAAP-18-0000613), and petitione......
-
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest v. Chang
...heard on the matter, to thereafter enter formal written findings consistent with constitutional standards and case law, specifically Ahn and Grube. It is ordered that the petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice consistent with this order. --------- ......