Title: Stanton v. Lee

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Wo. 28396
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

BARBARA K. STRNEON; JOSEPH C. STANTON, FetitiongyS, gy
ve Be BF
THE HONORABLE RANDAL K. 0. LEE, voce or HE SOD
CIRCUIT COURT oF THE FiRST crscurT, staTgye
OF HAWAI'T, Respondent, BE 2 oF
| »
2g

KENNETH M. CHO, CHAD D. TOMIYASU; COSTCO WHOL!
CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; ROE “NON-PROFIT”
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and ROE GOVERNWENTAL ENTITIES 1-10,
Respondents, Real Parties In Interest.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 04-1-2186-11 (RKOL))

ORDER
(By: Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Intermediate
recused)

Court of Appeals Judge Fujise, in place of Moon, C.J.,
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

 

mandamus filed by petitioners Barbara Stanton and Joseph Stanton
and the papers in support, it appears that the extent of
discovery was within the discretion of the respondent judge,
petitioners fail to demonstrate that the respondent judge
flagrantly and manifestly abused his discretion in denying and
Limiting discovery, and the denial and limitation of discovery is
on appeal

reviewable for abuse of discretion, not harmless error,

(see Acoba v, General Tire, inc, 92
petitioners

from a final judgment
Therefore,

Hawai'i 1, 9, 986 P.2d 288, 296 (1999).
See Kema v, Gaddis, 91

are not entitled to mandamus relief.
(A weit of mandamus is

Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)
an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner
denonstrates 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 writs are not intended to
supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts,
nor are they intended to serve as legal renedies in lieu of
notmal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to
act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the
exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted
erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her
jurisdiction, has conmitted a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to
act.). Aecordingly,

IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 15, 2007.
Arthur Y. Park,

Laurent J. Remillard, Jr. Leb —

and John ¢. McLaren

for petitioners Seeute oS lo

aoe

Gane, Bed
Ounce tot Geer