Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
2011 WL 10953408 (D.Hawai’i) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, D. Hawai’i, First Circuit.
Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe, a minor; Richard Roe 1, Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe 1, a minor; Richard Roe 2 and Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe 2, a minor;
all Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
State of Hawaii, Scott O’Neal, Sydney Dickerson, and John Does 1-10, Defendants. No. 11CV00550.
September 13, 2011. Civil No. 11-1-1712-08 (GWBC)
First Amended Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial; Summons
Michael Jay Green 4451, 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, Telephone: (808) 521-3336, Fax: (808) 566-0347, Glenn Uesugi 4865, 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, Telephone: (808) 521-3336, Fax: (808) 566-0347, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe, a minor. (Other Non-Vehicle Tort)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, for a claim for relief against Defendants above named, allege:
COUNT I 1. Plaintiffs, at all relevant times, were students at the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and the Blind (hereinafter “the school”) or parents of such students. 2. Plaintiff students are minors and are deaf. 3. Plaintiff parents are parents of students and file this action individually and as Next Friend on behalf of their children. 4. Plaintiffs file this action on behalf of a class of persons who are similarly situated. 5. The victimized students are deaf and some have other impairments which constitute disabilities under Federal and State law. 6. The State of Hawaii operates the school known as the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and the Blind. 7. At all relevant times, Sydney Dickerson was the administrator of the school and an employee of the State acting within the scope of her authority.
1

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
8. At all relevant times, Scott O’Neal was a counselor at the school and an employee or de facto employee with apparent authority at the school.
9. The Defendants named in this Complaint under the names of JOHN DOES 1-10 (hereinafter “DOE DEFENDANTS”) are persons, organizations or entities whose identities at the present time are unknown to Plaintiffs despite the exercise of due diligence. They are sued in this Complaint under fictitious names. Investigation as to the true identities was conducted by Plaintiffs by reviewing the documents available to them. Investigation as to the identity of DOE DEFENDANTS continues. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that direct or indirect conduct of these other Defendants, presently unknown to Plaintiffs, was or may have been a legal cause of the acts complained of and/or the injury, damage or loss thereby sustained by Plaintiffs, as a result of which all Defendants, unidentified and identified, may be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for the said injuries and losses sustained, inasmuch as the conduct of each Defendant may have coincided and/or concurred with that of each and every other Defendant, named or unnamed. John Does 1-10 may be responsible as principal for the conduct of an agent.
10. Plaintiffs bring this action both individually and on behalf of a class. The members of the class are students who, within the period of the applicable statute of limitations, attended the school and were sexually assaulted by other students of the school.
11. The class is so numerous (approximately 35 victims of sexual abuse) that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable.
12. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
13. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
14. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
15. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to members of the class.
16. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
17. The class members are similarly situated in that Defendants’ omissions and efforts to cover up numerous incidents of abuse caused harm to Plaintiffs and the class members in a similar fashion.
18. Questions of law and fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.
19. Questions of law and fact are common to the class, including the legal obligations and conduct of Defendants and their efforts to cover up what was happening at the school.
20. The claims of the Plaintiffs and the class members are common because all of the students suffered the same injury, namely sexual abuse, and all of the parents suffered anguish as a result of the sexual abuse of a child.
21. Defendants covered up and attempted to cover up in the same general fashion as to all of the class members what was happening at the school, including through threats.
22. Class members were injured in the same general fashion, namely through sexual abuse committed by fellow students that took place because of Defendants’ failure to provide a safe educational environment.
23. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and the class members adequately to supervise the students in their charge.
2

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
24. Students were required by law to attend school.
25. There was a special relationship between Defendants and both the offending students and their victims.
26. For many years, the school has had a problem with certain students, some of whom called themselves the “Ringleaders,” who on an ongoing basis, bullied, terrorized, assaulted, robbed, sodomized, raped, anally raped, gang raped, and/or sexually attacked students who were younger and smaller, including Plaintiff John Doe.
27. Some of the Ringleaders lived at the school and the school stood in loco parentis as to those students.
28. The school knew or should have known that the Ringleaders and the students who assaulted Plaintiff John Doe and the class members had a history of assaults, threatening, bullying, and violent behavior and posed a threat to the safety and well-being of Plaintiffs and the class members.
29. Under the totality of the circumstances presented, Defendants should have reasonably foreseen the possibility that Plaintiffs and the class members would be injured or suffer harm.
30. The school, including its administrator (Sydney Dickerson), and its counselor (Scott O’Neal), had actual knowledge and certainly had reason to know of the wrongful activities of the Ringleaders, including the bullying, coercion, and coerced sexual acts.
31. The Ringleaders were allowed to continue to attend the school even though Defendants received reports concerning their wrongful acts and had reason to know that the wrongful acts were recurring.
32. At various times, members of the Ringleaders admitted to school officials and counselors, including O’Neal, that they had in fact harmed and assaulted other students.
33. In approximately 2007, Dickerson was informed that boys were being assaulted and raped by other boys at the school, including on the school grounds.
34. The superintendent of the Department of Education and Sydney Dickerson were informed of coerced sexual acts.
35. In April, 2009, a counselor at the school became aware of the fact that a deaf student at the school other than Plaintiff had been intimidated into sexual acts with five boys at the school, believed to be Ringleaders.
36. In May, 2009, a mother of a student at the school wrote an employee of the Department of Education reporting that her son had been intimidated into sexual activity with several boys.
37. By June, 2009, the chairman of the Board of Education had been notified of a sexual assault at the school.
38. A young girl at the school became pregnant, which was known to school officials.
39. The Ringleaders coerced students into doing what the Ringleaders wanted by threats of violence and sexual attack, including sodomy and rape.
40. Under coercion by the Ringleaders, John Doe was forced to surrender to them various items of property, including clothing and video games.
41. The Ringleaders threatened that if John Doe did not provide them with what they wanted, he would be harmed and sexually assaulted.
42. At times when John Doe had nothing to provide the Ringleaders, they proceeded to fulfill their threats and engaged in 3

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
sexual acts with John Doe, including on school property.
43. Students, including Plaintiff John Doe, were coerced into submitting to anal sex with multiple members of the Ringleaders.
44. As a result of the mistreatment Plaintiff John Doe was receiving at the school, Plaintiff begged his mother not to require him to return to the school.
45. The Ringleaders’ activities were directed against not only Plaintiff John Doe but against various other class members at the school, and Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of what was going on.
46. Sexual assaults on students, including Plaintiff John Doe, occurred in the school’s bathroom, the indoor swimming pool area, and the woodshop.
47. Scott O’Neal himself engaged in inappropriate and questionable activities with students at the school, including having them stay with him overnight.
48. Out of malice and an improper purpose, Defendants at times concealed and conspired to conceal what was going on, and negligently, recklessly, and intentionally failed to take effective action to stop the wrongful activities.
49. Defendants negligently or recklessly failed adequately to monitor bathrooms and other areas where the Ringleaders engaged in an ongoing practice of coercing other students into sexual acts.
50. Defendants failed to notify appropriate authorities, including the police, on a timely basis.
51. At certain times, Defendants failed to advise parents of victimized students, including Plaintiff Jane Doe, and failed to advise the police concerning what was happening.
52. Defendants conspired with each other to use threats, intimidation and retaliation to discourage reporting by teachers and parents of the improper activities at the school.
53. Defendants’ response to reports of sexual assaults and inappropriate conduct at the school was clearly unreasonable in the light of circumstances known to the school and its representatives.
54. Defendants followed a common policy in which they attempted to cover up the pattern of sexual abuse that was occurring at the school, including by advising parents that if they reported what had happened, the school would be closed and members of the deaf community would view the parents and their children negatively.
55. Defendants failed to adopt appropriate policies and procedures addressing such matters as problem students, supervision, monitoring both students and school properties, and eliminating risks to students.
56. When Defendants failed to take effective action to stop the wrongful conduct of the Ringleaders, the Ringleaders were emboldened and their wrongful conduct continued.
57. At one point, a young girl on a school bus in the presence of other students was coerced into giving oral sex to a member of the Ringleaders, who filmed the act on his cell phone.
58. The Ringleader in question then showed the video he had made to other students.
59. The errors and omissions of the State created and resulted in a hostile learning environment for John Doe and the class members, persons with a disabilities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
4

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
60. John Doe and the class members were harassed as a result of the Defendants’ failures and the harassment altered the conditions of their education and created an abusive educational or learning environment. 61. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been excluded from participation in and/or denied benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or subjected to discrimination by a public entity, within the meaning of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S.C. § 12134 and the Rehabilitation Act. 62. Plaintiffs were otherwise qualified for benefits that were denied. 63. Plaintiffs were denied benefits by reason of their disabilities. 64. The ability of Plaintiffs and the members of the class to engage in a major life activity, namely learning, was substantially limited because they were deaf or otherwise impaired with a disability. 65. The State was deliberately indifferent to the harassment of John Doe and the class members. 66. The State of Hawaii received federal financial assistance sufficient to mandate compliance with federal law. 67. To the extent any of the wrongful acts occurred outside of the period of any potentially applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiffs did not discover and, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have discovered the claims alleged herein until within the permissible period for the filing of this action and the existence of the claim was concealed fraudulently by Defendants. 68. The actions of Defendants were negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, intentional, malicious, and motivated by an improper purpose. 69. As a result of the negligent, intentional, and wrongful acts of Defendants alleged above, Plaintiffs and the class members suffered grievous and extreme physical and emotional injuries, humiliation, embarrassment, and pain, and said injuries will continue into the future, causing general and special damages, including relocation costs and medical bills, in an amount to be shown at trial. 70. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages against the Defendants.
COUNT II 71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 72. The actions of Defendants were outrageous and inflicted severe and extreme emotional distress upon Plaintiffs, as well as physical injury upon Plaintiff John Doe.
COUNT III 73. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 74. The actions and omissions of Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 701, 705, 794, and 794a.
5

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
COUNT IV 75. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 76. The actions and omissions of Defendants violated the Americans with Disability Act, including Title II and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq.
COUNT V 77. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 78. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendant violated Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. 79. The actions and omissions of Defendants had a substantial negative effect on the ability of the students to receive an education. 80. The actions and omissions of Defendants altered the conditions of the education of the students and created an abusive educational environment.
COUNT VI 81. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 82. The actions and omissions of Defendants violated the Individuals with Disabilities Act, Section 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.
COUNT VII 83. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 84. The errors and omissions of Defendants and their representatives were done under color of State law and deprived Plaintiffs and the class members of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and/or Federal law, including the due process right to life and liberty. 85. The conduct of Defendants and their representatives violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the class members. 86. The errors and omissions of Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT VIII 87. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 88. The actions and omissions of Defendants violated various provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Hawaii, including provisions regarding education and persons with disabilities, including Haw. Const. Art. X, Sec. 1, H.R.S.
6

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953408...
§ 302 A-436, 302 A-1001, and 302 A-1002.
COUNT IX 89. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 90. Plaintiffs are entitled to prohibitory and mandatory injunctions precluding Defendants from continuing to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above and mandating that Defendants act reasonably to preclude further injuries to Plaintiffs and the class members. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for an award of general, special, and punitive damages against Defendants, interest, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper in the circumstances. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 25, 2011. <<signature>> MICHAEL JAY GREEN GLENN UESUGI Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all Defendants to the extent permitted by law. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 25, 2011. <<signature>> MICHAEL JAY GREEN GLENN UESUGI Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Docu\ ment 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 110 SLC

MICHAEL JAY GREEN 4451 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 521-3336
Fax: (808) 566-0347

GLENN UESUGI

4865

841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 521-3336

Fax: (808) 566-0347

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANE DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe, a minor

2tnAUG~ 07
F. 01AK£
CLEP\K

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAil

JANE DOE, Individually and as next

)

Friend of John Doe, a minor, Individually )

and on behalf of a class of persons

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF HAWAII, SCOTT O'NEAL, )

SYDNEY DICKERSON, AND JOHN )

DOES 1-10,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL NO. 11-1- 17 12 -0 8
(Other Non-Vehicle Tort)
COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL; SUMMONS

Gwac

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, for a claim for relief against Defendants above named, allege:

COUNT I

1. Plaintiff John Doe, at all relevant times, was a student at the Hawaii Center for the

Deaf and the Blind (hereinafter "the school").

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 111
2. John Doe is a minor and is deaf. 3. Plaintiff Jane Doe is the mother of John Doe, and files this action individually and as Next Friend on behalf of her son and on behalf of persons similarly situated. 4. The class consists of persons who attended the school known as the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and the Blind and who were the victims of sexual assaults by other students of the school. 5. The State of Hawaii operates the school known as the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and the Blind. 6. At all relevant times, Sydney Dickerson was the administrator of the school and an employee of the State acting within the scope of her authority. 7. At all relevant times, Scott O'Neal was a counselor at the school and an employee or de facto employee with apparent authority at the school. 8. The Defendants named in this Complaint under the names of JOHN DOES 1-10 (hereinafter "DOE DEFENDANTS") are persons, organizations or entities whose identities at the present time are unknown to Plaintiffs despite the exercise of due diligence. They are sued in this Complaint under fictitious names. Investigation as to the true identities was conducted by Plaintiffs by reviewing the documents available to them. Investigation as to the identity of DOE DEFENDANTS continues. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that direct or indirect conduct of these other Defendants, presently unknown to Plaintiffs, was or may have been a legal cause of the acts complained of and/or the injury, damage or loss thereby sustained by Plaintiffs, as a result of which all Defendants, unidentified and identified, may be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for the said injuries and losses sustained, inasmuch as the conduct of each Defendant may have coincided and/or concurred with that of each and every other
2

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 112
Defendant, named or unnamed. John Does 1-10 may be responsible as principal for the conduct of an agent.
9. For many years, the school has had a problem with certain students, some of whom called themselves the "Ringleaders," who on an ongoing basis, bullied, terrorized, assaulted, robbed, sodomized, raped, anally raped, gang raped, and/or sexually attacked students who were younger and smaller, including Plaintiff John Doe.
10. Some of the Ringleaders lived at the school and the school stood in loco parentis as to those students.
11. Plaintiff brings this action both individually and on behalf of a class. The members of the class are students who, within the period of the applicable statute of limitations, attended the school and were sexually assaulted by other students of the school. The class is so numerous (approximately 35 victims of sexual abuse) that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to members of the class. Questions of law and fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The class members are similarly situated in that Defendants' omissions and efforts to cover up numerous incidents of abuse caused harm to Plaintiff and the class members in a similar fashion.
12. Questions oflaw and fact are common to the class, including the legal obligations
3

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 113
and conduct of Defendants and their efforts to cover up what was happening at the school. 13. Plaintiff and the members of the class he represents are entitled to an award of
damages in such amounts as shall be shown. 14. The victimized students are deaf and some have other impairments. 15. The school, including its administrator (Sydney Dickerson), and its counselor
(Scott O'Neal), had actual knowledge and certainly had reason to know of the wrongful activities of the Ringleaders, including the bullying, coercion, and coerced sexual acts.
16. The Ringleaders were allowed to continue to attend the school even though Defendants received reports concerning their wrongful acts and had reason to know that the wrongful acts were recurring.
17. At various times, members of the Ringleaders admitted to school officials and counselors, including O'Neal, that they had in fact harmed and assaulted other students.
18. In approximately 2007, Dickerson was informed that boys were being assaulted and raped by other boys at the school, including on the school grounds.
19. The superintendent of the Department of Education and Sydney Dickerson were informed of coerced sexual acts.
20. In April, 2009, a counselor at the school became aware of the fact that a deaf student at the school other than Plaintiff had been intimidated into sexual acts with five boys at the school, believed to be Ringleaders.
21. In May, 2009, a mother of a student at the school wrote an employee of the Department of Education reporting that her son had been intimidated into sexual activity with several boys.
22. By June, 2009, the chairman of the Board of Education had been notified of a
4

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Pa-g--e- 5 of 10 PageID #: 114
sexual assault at the school. 23. A young girl at the school became pregnant, which was known to school officials. 24. The Ringleaders coerced students into doing what the Ringleaders wanted by
threats of violence and sexual attack, including sodomy and rape. 25. Under coercion by the Ringleaders, John Doe was forced to surrender to them
various items of property, including clothing and video games. 26. The Ringleaders threatened that if John Doe did not provide them with what they
wanted, he would be harmed and sexually assaulted. 27. At times when John Doe had nothing to provide the Ringleaders, they proceeded
to fulfill their threats and engaged in sexual acts with John Doe, including on school property. 28. Students, including Plaintiff John Doe, were coerced into submitting to anal sex
with multiple members of the Ringleaders. 29. The Ringleaders' activities were directed against not only Plaintiff John Doe but
against various other students at the school, and Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of what was going on.
30. Sexual assaults on students, including Plaintiff John Doe, occurred in the school's bathroom, the indoor swimming pool area, and the woodshop.
31. Scott O'Neal himself engaged in inappropriate and questionable activities with students at the school, including having them stay with him overnight.
32. Out of malice and an improper purpose, Defendants at times concealed and conspired to conceal what was going on and negligently, recklessly, and intentionally failed to take effective action to stop the wrongful activities.
33. Defendants negligently or recklessly failed to monitor bathrooms and other areas
5

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 115
where the Ringleaders engaged in an ongoing practice of coercing other students into sexual acts. 34. Defendants failed to notify appropriate authorities including the police on a timely
basis. 35. At certain times, Defendants failed to advise parents of victimized students,
including Plaintiff Jane Doe, and failed to advise the police concerning what was happening. 36. When Defendants failed to take effective action to stop the wrongful conduct of
the Ringleaders, the Ringleaders were emboldened and their wrongful conduct continued. 37. Defendants failed to adopt appropriate policies and procedures addressing such
matters as problem students, supervision, monitoring both students and school properties, and eliminating risks to students.
38. At one point, a young girl on a school bus in the presence of other students was coerced into giving oral sex to a member of the Ringleaders who filmed the act on his cell phone.
39. The ringleader in question then showed the video he had made to other students. 40. Defendants conspired with each other to use threats, intimidation and retaliation to discourage reporting by teachers and parents of the improper activities at the school. 41. The errors and omissions of the State created and resulted in a hostile learning environment for John Doe, a person with a disability within the meaning ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act. 42. John Doe was harassed as a result of the State's failures and the harassment altered the conditions of his education and created an abusive educational or learning environment. 43. The State was deliberately indifferent to the harassment of John Doe. 44. The State of Hawaii received federal financial assistance sufficient to mandate
6

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 116
compliance with federal law. 45. To the extent any of the wrongful acts occurred outside ofthe period of any
potentially applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiffs did not discover and, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have discovered the claims alleged herein until within the permissible period for the filing of this action.
46. The actions of Defendants were negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, intentional, and/or malicious.
47. As a result of the negligent, intentional, and wrongful acts of Defendants alleged above, Plaintiffs suffered grievous and extreme physical and emotional injuries, humiliation, embarrassment, and pain, and said injuries will continue into the future, causing general and special damages, including relocation costs in an amount to be shown at trial.
48. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages against the Defendants other than the State. COUNT II
49. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations. 50. The actions of Defendants were outrageous and inflicted severe and extreme emotional distress upon Plaintiffs, as well as physical injury on Plaintiff John Doe. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for an award of general and special damages against Defendants, punitive damages against the Defendants other than the State, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper in the circumstances.
7

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 117 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _ _ _ _ _ _:, 2011.
DEMANDFORJURYTruAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all Defendants to the extent permitted by law.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _ _ _ _ _ _, 2011. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 118
r '

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAil

JANE DOE, Individually and as next

)

Friend of John Doe, a minor, Individually )

and on behalf of a class of persons

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF HAWAII, SCOTT O'NEAL, )

SYDNEY DICKERSON, AND JOHN )

DOES 1-10,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL NO. (Other Non-Vehicle Tort)
SUMMONS

SUMMONS

To the above-named Defendants:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the court and serve upon Plaintiffs attorney, Michael Jay Green, whose address is 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, an answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service ofthis summons upon you, exclusive ofthe day of service. Ifyou fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
This summons shall not be personally delivered between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on premises not open to the general public, unless a judge of the above-entitled court permits, in writing on this summons, personal delivery during those hours.

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 13-3 Filed 09/13/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 119
'' '
A failure to obey this summons may result in an entry of default and default judgment against the disobeying person or party.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _ _ _AU_G_1_0_20_1_1_ _, 2011.
CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT
2

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 14 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 174

DAVID M. LOUIE 2162 Attorney General of Hawaii

CARON M. INAGAKI 3835

JOHN F. MOLAY

4994

Deputy Attorneys General

Department of the Attorney General

State of Hawaii

425 Queen Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 586-1494

Attorneys for Defendant State of Hawaii

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

JANE DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of JOHN DOE, a minor; RICHARD ROE 1, Individually and on behalf of JANE ROE 1, a minor; RICHARD ROE 2 and MRS. RICHARD ROE 2, , Individually and on behalf of JANE ROE 2, a minor; all Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated,

CIVIL NO. 11-00550 DAE KSC
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT (FRCivP Rule 14(a))

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAII, SCOTT O’NEAL, SYDNEY DICKERSON, AND JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants

_______________________________

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 14 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 175
STATE OF HAWAII, Third Party Plaintiff,
vs. PETER POES 1-100, PATRICIA POES 1-100, AND PARENT POES 1100,
Third party Defendants.
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute between Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe, Richard Roe 1, Jane Roe 1, Richard Roe 2, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Jane Roe 2 and Defendants State of Hawaii, Scott O’Neal and Sydney Dickerson in that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint relate to alleged violations of federal laws and torts that were committed in the State of Hawaii by the Defendants.
2. This Third Party Complaint asserts that Peter Poes 1-100, Patricia Poes 1-100 and Parent Poes 1-100 are liable to the State of Hawaii for the liability the State of Hawaii may owe to Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe, Richard Roe 1, Jane Roe 1, Richard Roe 2, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Jane Roe 2 and members of the
2

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 14 Filed 09/20/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 176
putative class they purport to represent. The claim asserted in this Third Party Complaint arises out of the same facts and circumstances as those in the First Amended Complaint.
PARTIES 3. The true names of Third Party Defendants Peter Poes 1-100, Patricia Poes 1-100 and Parent Poes 1-100, inclusive, are unknown to Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii, at this time. Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii, therefore sues these Third Party Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to FRCivP, Rule 17(d). Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges that each of the Third Party Defendants designated as Poe is legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in the First Amended Complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Investigation as to their true identities is ongoing, and not yet complete, given the general reluctance of those implicated to admit their involvement in the underlying events. 4. The parties designated as Peter Poes 1-100 are male students or former students, who sexually assaulted, or participated in the sexual assaults upon Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe 2 and members of the putative class, which Plaintiffs purport to represent, as set forth in the First Amended Complaint.
3

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 14 Filed 09/20/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 177
5. The parties designated as Patricia Poes 1-100 are female students or former students, who sexually assaulted, or participated in the sexual assaults upon Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe 2 and members of the putative class, which Plaintiffs purport to represent, as set forth in the First Amended Complaint.
6. The parties designated as Parent Poes 1-100 are the parents of Peter Poes 1-100 and Patricia Poes 1-100, the students or former students, who sexually assaulted, or participated in the sexual assaults upon Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Roe 1 and Jane Roe 2 and members of the putative class which Plaintiffs purport to represent, as set forth in the First Amended Complaint. The Parent Poes 1-100 are jointly and severally responsible for the torts of their unmarried minor children pursuant to HRS § 577-3.
7. As Plaintiffs Jane Doe’s, Richard Roe 1’s, Richard Roe 2’s and Mrs. Richard Roe 2’s claims for damages is derivative upon Plaintiffs John Doe’s, Jane Roe 1’s, and Jane Roe 2’s claims, Third Party Defendants Peter Poes 1-100, Patricia Poes 1-100 and Parent Poes 1-100 are responsible for any damages Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Richard Roe 2 and Mrs. Richard Roe 2 suffered, or any damages suffered by any member of the putative class which Plaintiffs purport to represent.
4

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 14 Filed 09/20/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 178
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8. Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe, Richard Roe 1, Jane Roe 1, Richard Roe 2, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Jane Roe 2 have filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant State of Hawaii in this action. A copy of the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is attached to this Third Party Complaint as Exhibit A. 9. Third Party Defendants Peter Poes 1-100 and Patricia Poes 1-100 are liable to Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii for all or part of Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii because Peter Poes 1-100 and Patricia Poes 1-100 are the students or former students, who sexually assaulted, or participated in the sexual assaults upon Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe 2 and members of the putative class, which Plaintiffs purport to represent, as set forth in the First Amended Complaint. 10. Third Party Defendants Parent Poes 1-100 are liable to Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii for all or part of Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii because they are the parents of Third Party Defendants Peter Poes 1-100 and Patricia Poes 1-100 and are jointly and severally responsible for the torts of their unmarried minor children pursuant to HRS § 577-3.
5

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 14 Filed 09/20/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 179
PRAYER Third Party Plaintiff, State of Hawaii, demands judgment against Third Party Defendants Peter Poes 1-100, Patricia Poes 1-100 and Parent Poes 1-100 for all or part of any sums that may be adjudged against the State of Hawaii in favor of Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe, Richard Roe 1, Jane Roe 1, Richard Roe 2, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Jane Roe 2, or any member of the putative classes which they purport to represent. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 20, 2011.
DAVID M. LOUIE Attorney General of Hawaii
________/s/ John F. Molay_________ CARON M. INAGAKI JOHN F. MOLAY Deputy Attorneys General Attorneys for the State of Hawaii
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

JANE DOE, Individually and as Next )

Friend of JOHN DOE, a minor;

)

RICHARD ROE 1, Individually and )

on behalf of JANE ROE 1, a minor; )

RICHARD ROE 2 and MRS.

)

RICHARD ROE 2, Individually and )

on behalf of JANE ROE 2, a minor; )

all Individually and on behalf of a )

class of persons similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF HAWAII, SCOTT

)

O’NEAL, SYDNEY DICKERSON, )

and John Does 1-10,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

)

STATE OF HAWAII,

)

)

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

PETER POES 1-100, PATRICIA )

POES 1-100, AND PARENT POES )

1-100,

)

)

Third-Party Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 11-00550 DAE-KSC

SCOTT O’NEAL,

)

)

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

ROXSANNE TOMITA,

)

)

Third-Party Defendant. )

_____________________________ )

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SCOTT O’NEAL’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
On October 14, 2011, the Court heard Defendant Scott O’Neal’s Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”). Glenn H. Uesugi Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs; Randall K. Schmitt, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Scott O’Neal; Deputy Attorney General Dennis K. Ferm appeared on behalf of Defendant State of Hawaii; and C. Bryan Fitzgerald, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Sydney Dickerson. After reviewing the Motion as well as the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court DENIES Defendant Scott O’Neal’s (“O’Neal”) Motion for Protective Order. (Doc. # 16.)

2

BACKGROUND The instant case action arises from allegations relating to sexual assault which allegedly took place between and among students at the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and the Blind (the “School”). (“Compl., Doc. # 1-1.) Plaintiffs claim that a group of students, identified as “Ringleaders” in the Complaint, had “[f]or many years . . . bullied, terrorized, assaulted, robbed sodomized, raped, anally raped, gang raped, and/or sexual attacked students,” including Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants “knew or should have known that the Ringleaders” engaged in this conduct. (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendant Sydney Dickerson (“Dickerson”), the School’s administrator and O’Neal, the School’s counselor, “had actual knowledge and certainly had reason to know of the wrongful activities of the Ringleaders.” (Id. ¶ 30.) According to Plaintiffs, the Ringleaders admitted to school counselors and O’Neal in particular “that they had in fact harmed and assaulted other students.” (Id. ¶ 32.) The Complaint goes on to detail specific instances of sexual assault against Plaintiffs, and in particular against Plaintiff John Doe. (Id. ¶ 38–46.) Plaintiffs also allege that O’Neal “engaged in inappropriate and questionable activities with students at the school, including having them stay with him overnight.” (Id. ¶ 47.) Plaintiffs complain that “[o]ut of malice and an
3

improper purpose, Defendants at times concealed and conspired to conceal what was going on, and negligently, recklessly, and intentionally failed to take effective action to stop the wrongful activities.” (Id. ¶ 48.) Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants failed to monitor bathrooms, notify appropriate authorities, and advise parents of victimized students. (Id. ¶¶ 49–51.)
Based on these facts, Plaintiffs assert against Defendants’ causes of action for: (1) negligence and punitive damages (id. ¶ 70); (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (id. ¶¶ 71–72); (3) violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (id. ¶¶ 73–74); (4) violations of the Americans with Disability Act (id. ¶¶ 75–76); (5) violations of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (id. ¶¶ 77–80); (6) violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (id. ¶¶ 81–82); (7) state and federal constitutional violations (id. ¶¶ 83–88).
On August 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the First Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii. (See Doc. # 1-1.) On September 9, 2011, Defendants removed to federal court. (See Doc. # 1.) On September 21, 2011, O’Neal filed the instant Motion. (“Mot.,” Doc. # 16.) On October 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition. (“Opp’n,” Doc. # 35.) The same day, Defendant State of Hawaii filed a Response. (“Resp.,” Doc. # 36.)
4

STANDARD OF REVIEW Because “[t]he potential for injury to the integrity of the judicial process is significant in cases involving trial publicity,” a court may restrict publicity in certain circumstances. Levine v. U. S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Cal., 764 F.2d 590, 595, 597 (9th Cir. 1985). However, “[o]nly the occasional case presents a danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity.” Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1064 (1991). To determine whether a case presents a danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity, a court must balance the interests of ensuring the integrity of the judicial process, including the right to a fair and impartial jury, with the competing First Amendment rights of the attorneys publicizing the case. See Levine, 764 F.2d at 595, 597; Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. To strike that balance, courts may issue a protective order (otherwise known as a “gag order”) when a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” may result from the extrajudicial statements. Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075; see also Berndt v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, at *3 (N.D. Cal. August 9, 2004). Additionally, the order must be “narrowly drawn” and no “less restrictive alternatives” may be available, such as voir dire, change of venue or some other device. Levine, 764 F.2d at 595; Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075; Berndt, 2004 WL 1774227, at *3.
5

DISCUSSION
I. Motion for Protective Order
In his Motion, O’Neal seeks an order prohibiting “the parties and
attorneys in this matter from communicating with the media” with respect to the
following information:
1. The character, credibility, or reputation of a party; 2. The identity of a witness or expected testimony of a party or a
witness; 3. The contents of any pretrial confession, admission, or statement
given by a defendant or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement; 4. The identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented or the absence of such physical evidence; 5. The strengths or weaknesses of the case of either party; and 6. Any other information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence and would create a substantial risk of prejudice if disclosed.
(Mot. at 13.)
O’Neal requests the protective order because “[t]he media coverage
surrounding this case has been rampant” and because Plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael
Green (“Green”) has “attempt[ed] to win [the] case through the media and not the
Court.” (Mot. at 3.) O’Neal points to the following statements Green has made to
the media in support of this assertion:
6

• “There’s no question that people in the highest places of Department of Education knew about this. They knew about it at the very latest in 2009 and probably before. . . . You’re talking about some people who can’t see, so they can’t be witnesses. We have people that can’t hear, so they can’t hear outcries. And somebody has to be held accountable for it. I have a concern that the police investigation was frustrated.” (Mot., Ex. A.)
• “The parents whose children were suspected of wrong doing and parents of children apparently were preyed upon were never told. . . . Because I am clear that some of the people at [sic] the very top knew I have no doubt about that[.]” (Mot., Ex. B.)
• “It’s not thinkable. You can send your child that has these special needs to a school and be worried about your child being raped. It’s unthinkable. . . . Things that no child or no person should ever experience, coupled with the fact that these children have special needs. . . . The buck stops with the principal but there are a lot of loose coins underneath that buck that need to
7

be taken care of. . . . The teachers knew. I have no doubt that they knew.” (Mot., Ex. C.) • “There could be an obstruction of justice issue which are criminal, tampering with witnesses could be criminal, so there’s a lot of stuff out there, and this is just the beginning of it. I think people will come forward.” (Mot., Ex. D.) • “I can’t imagine raping someone in the bathroom and you get a timeout for that. Go stand in the comer for 15 minutes and don’t do it again.” (Mot., Ex. E.) • “In the complaint there is an allegation about an adult, and we know that some of the students spent time at his home. And we also have reason to believe that he was aware of sexual misconduct among students at the school[.]” (Mot., Ex. F.) • “If there was a conspiracy to cover this up and obstruct justice there is [sic] going to be some serious problems for people[.]” (Mot., Ex. G.) Finally, O’Neal points to the online comments to articles which quote these statements as evidence that Green’s “media blitz is having the desired effect on the public.” (Mot. at 5–7.)
8

II. Substantial Likelihood of Material Prejudice As discussed, for O’Neal to be entitled to the relief he seeks, he must
demonstrate a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” such that he will not receive a fair trial. Gentile 501 U.S. at 1075. This Court must balance O’Neal’s right to a fair and impartial jury trial, with Green’s competing First Amendment rights. See Levine, 764 F.2d at 595, 597; Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075.
O’Neal proffers two arguments for why there is a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice.” Specifically, O’Neal contends that further statements by Green: (1) would cause “further prejudice” to O’Neal’s livelihood and (2) threaten his right to a fair trial. (Mot. at 10.)
O’Neal’s first argument is not persuasive. O’Neal contends that Green’s comments will “further damage [his] reputation within the deaf community” such that prejudicial statements by Green “will only serve to further blacklist [O’Neal’s] name within [the deaf] community.” O’Neal argues that “a protective order is necessary in this matter to prevent further prejudice to [O’Neal] and protect his livelihood.” (Id.)
While the Court is sympathetic to these arguments, they are not relevant for resolution of the instant Motion. The Supreme Court in Gentile was clear, to obtain a protective order in this context a Court considers an individual’s
9

right to a “fair trial by impartial jurors,” not potential damage to that individual’s livelihood. See 501 U.S. at 1075 (“Few, if any interest under the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial by ‘impartial jurors,’ and an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would violate that fundamental right.”). Indeed, the Court explicitly stated that limitations in this context “are aimed at two principal evils: (1) comments that are likely to influence the actual outcome of the trial, and (2) comments that are likely to prejudice the jury venire, even if an untainted panel can ultimately be found.” Id. O’Neal’s arguments about the damage to his livelihood cannot therefore be a part of this Court’s calculus at present.1 Instead, as indicated above, this Court must balance O’Neal’s right to a fair and impartial trial, with Green’s competing First Amendment rights. See Levine, 764 F.2d at 595, 597; Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. O’Neal’s first argument is therefore not persuasive.
1 To be certain, O’Neal may be entitled to relief in another context. For instance, O’Neal might be entitled to a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order in a defamation suit against Green, but that is not the issue here. O’Neal specifically filed the instant Motion because he claims Green’s accusations are “a blatant attempt by [Green] to win [the] case through the media and not the Court.” (Mot. at 3.) The Court’s inquiry is therefore limited to whether and to what extent Green’s statements have threatened O’Neal’s right to a fair trial. See Levine, 764 F.2d at 595, 597; Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075.
10

As to O’Neal’s second argument, that Green’s extrajudicial statements threaten O’Neal’s right to a fair trial, the Court cannot conclude that the statements were so inflammatory that this Court should impose a restraint on Green’s freedom of speech by Court order.
As a preliminary matter, the substance of the grand majority of Green’s statements to the media are already a part of the public record. Green, for instance, has stated that “people in the highest places of the Department of Education knew about [the sexual assault.]” (Mot., Ex. A.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege specifically that Defendants “covered up and attempted to cover up . . . what was happening at the school, including through threats.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) Similarly, Green told the media that “[t]he parents whose children were suspected of wrong doing and parents of children apparently were prayed upon and were never told.” (Mot., Ex. B.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants failed to advise parents of victimized students . . . concerning what was happening.” (Compl. ¶ 51.) Indeed, Green, in the only statement where he nearly mentions O’Neal by name, stated as follows:
In the complaint there is an allegation about an adult, and we know that some of the students spent time at his home. And we also have reason to believe that he was aware of sexual misconduct among students at the school[.]
11

(Mot, Ex. F.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “O’Neal himself engaged in inappropriate and questionable activities with students at the school, including having them stay with him overnight.” (Compl. ¶ 47.) The Complaint also alleges that O’Neal “had actual knowledge and certainly had reason to know of the wrongful activities of the Ringleaders.” (Id. ¶ 30.) The Court cannot conclude that Green’s statements, which, by and large, are contained in the Complaint and already a part of the public record, are so inflammatory that the Court should restrain Green’s speech.
Moreover, the qualitative nature of Green’s statements simply do not rise to the high level necessary to justify issuing a protective order. The instant case certainly does not compare favorably to the seminal United States Supreme Court decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). There, the Court held a defendant did not obtain a fair trial where, in a nationally sensationalized murder trial, the names of the jurors had been disclosed to the media and the trial court denied the defendant’s request to examine the jury concerning what they had heard in the media regarding the case. Id. at 353–57. Nor does it compare favorably with Levine. There, the defendant was a former special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation who was arrested and charged with espionage. 764 F.2d at 592. “The criminal proceedings against [the defendant] received
12

extensive local and national media coverage.” Id. at 593. The court there twice admonished defense counsel “to maintain an atmosphere in which a fair trial could be conducted.” Id. Notwithstanding the warning, the defendant’s attorneys began to discuss trial strategy and the implications of various court decisions with reporters for the Los Angeles Times. Id. Thereafter the district court issued a protective order prohibiting either party’s attorneys from speaking to the press. Id. The Ninth Circuit concluded under those circumstances that “the record support[ed] the district court’s conclusion that the activity restrained [posed] a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.” Id. at 598. This was particularly so because of the potential “circus-like environment that surrounds highly publicized trials” and because the case had received widespread publicity. Id.
While it is true that the instant case has received some publicity, it is not comparable to the levels described either in Levine or Sheppard. There is certainly no national media attention as yet on the instant case as in either case. Nor has Green discussed trial strategy or the implications of this Court’s rulings with the media as in Levine. Instead, as discussed, Green has done little more than reiterate what is already a part of the public record as contained in the Complaint. Under these circumstances, Green’s statements have not been so inflammatory that
13

O’Neal’s right to a fair trial requires this Court to issue a protective order. In other words, the Court cannot conclude that there exists or will exist a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” such that O’Neal will not receive a fair trial. Gentile 501 U.S. at 1075.
Moreover, the Court has at its disposal a variety of tools to ensure that the jury pool will not be tainted which are “less restrictive” than a protective order. Levine, 764 F.2d at 595; Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. For instance, the Court will incorporate into its voir dire a question about the extent to which each potential juror has heard about the case and whether their knowledge of the case will color their opinion at trial.
The Court does, however, caution Mr. Green to exercise restraint in his dealings with the media. Moving forward Green must “maintain an atmosphere in which a fair trial could be conducted.” Levine, 764 F.2d at 593. Indeed, this Court wishes to remind all counsel of their obligations under Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 which provides that
[a] lawyer who is participating . . . in the litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
14

Haw. R. Prof’l Conduct 3.6. The Court expects all counsel to adhere to their ethical obligations moving forward in these proceedings. The Court will not allow this trial to devolve into a “circus-like environment” as in Levine or Sheppard.
CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Scott O’Neal’s (“O’Neal”) Motion for Protective Order. (Doc. # 16.) IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 14, 2011.
_____________________________ David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
Doe, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al, Civ. No. 11-00550 DAE-KSC; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SCOTT O’NEAL’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
15

 
 Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953406...
2011 WL 10953406 (D.Hawai’i) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, D. Hawai’i.
Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe, a minor; Richard Roe 1, Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe 1, a minor; Richard Roe 2 and Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe2, a minor;
all Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
State of Hawaii, Scott O’Neal, Sydney Dickerson, and John Does 1-10, Defendants; State of Hawaii, Third-Party Plaintiff, v.
Peter Poes 1-100, Patricia Poes 1-100, and Parent Poes 1-100, Third-Party Defendants; Scott O’Neal, Third-Party Plaintiff, v.
Roxsanne Tomita, Third-Party Defendants.
No. CV11-00550 DAE KSC. November 3, 2011.
Defendant Scott O’Neal’s First Amended Third-Party Complaint Against Roxsanne Tomita; Certificate of Service
McCorriston Miller Mukai Mackinnon LLP, Randall K. Schmitt #3752-0, schmitt @m41aw.com, Jordon J. Kimura #9182-0, kimura@im41aw.com, 500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor, Honolulu, Hawai’i 96813, Telephone: (808) 529-7300, Facsimile: (808) 524-8293, Attorneys for Defendant. Scott O’Neal.
DEFENDANT SCOTT O’NEAL’S FIRST AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST ROXSANNE TOMITA
Defendant Scott O’Neal (“O’Neal”), by and through his attorneys, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP, hereby alleges his First Amended Third-Party Complaint against Roxsanne Tomita (“Tomita”) as follows:
1. O’Neal is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, in the State of Hawai’i.
2. Upon information and belief, Tomita is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the County of Hawai’i, in the State of Hawai’i.
3. On August 26, 2011, Plaintiffs Jane Doe, Individually and as next Friend of John Doe, a minor, Richard Roe 1, Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe 1, a minor, Richard Roe 2 and Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe 2, a minor, and all Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed their First Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai’i, in a proceeding designated as Civil No. 11-1-1712-08 (GWBC) (“First Amended Complaint”), alleging that O’Neal is liable to Plaintiffs.
4. The State proceeding involving the First Amended Complaint was removed on September 9, 2011 to this Court.
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the claims in this Third-Party Complaint arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are so related to the federal claims asserted by Plaintiffs that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with the underlying dispute.
1

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953406...
6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted in this Third-Party Complaint occurred in this judicial district.
7. Like O’Neal, Tomita was an independent contractor of the State of Hawai’i Department of Education to provide individual, group, family, and consultative services for students that attended the Hawaii School for the Deaf and the Blind (“HSDB”).
8. The same rules and guidelines apply to both O’Neal and Tomita’s practices.
9. Upon information and belief, during all times relevant, O’Neal and Tomita were the only outside counselors for HSDB.
10. Both O’Neal and Tomita received their clients through the same procedure: (1) first, an incident or conduct is reported to HSDB; (2) second, the individuals and situations involved are reviewed by the school and a team from the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) administrated by and through the Department of Education (“DOE”), additional evaluations are requested if warranted, and a determination is made by the IEP team as to whether services are required that are beyond the scope of the school to provide directly; and (3) third, a referral is made to either O’Neal or Tomita for behavioral health counseling and therapy.
11. O’Neal was predominantly referred male students for counseling.
12. Tomita was predominantly referred female students for counseling.
13. All students were referred to O’Neal or Tomita for counseling by the IEP process.
14. O’Neal and Tomita co-facilitated a counseling group in 2009 for five boys who had been accused of engaging in inappropriate sexual activities with other students.
15. Along with O’Neal, Tomita worked with these boys for at least the first 7 months of this group.
16. The first several sessions of any counseling session, whether in an individual or group setting, consist of working with the client to determine why they think they are receiving and are being referred for counseling, along with having the client talk about what they did or did not do that resulted in the need for counseling.
17. Plaintiffs allege that “members of the ‘Ringleaders’ admitted to school officials and counselors, including O’Neal, that they had in fact harmed and assaulted other students.”
18. If anything was “admitted” to O’Neal, it would have also been “admitted” to Tomita in the group counseling sessions.
19. One of the Plaintiffs has been a client of Tomita since 2000.
20. If there were things disclosed by this client that needed to be reported, it was Tomita’s responsibility to do so.
21. Tomita also met individually with three boys from the group counseling session on a semi-regular basis, meeting with the boys and their girlfriends.
22. If there were things disclosed during these individual session that needed to be reported, it was Tomita’s responsibility to do so.
23. Further, Tomita told the parent of one of O’Neal’s clients-a student of HSDB-that the client had been raped at HSDB and that both O’Neal and HSDB knew of the incident but did not inform the parent.
2

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953406...
24. This allegation of rape was unfounded and the evidence relied upon by Tomita when informing the parent did not exist. 25. This was a false and unfounded claim that Tomita fostered but failed to do any level of confirmation. 26. The parent subsequently removed the client from HSDB and refused to allow O’Neal to work with the client. 27. Upon information and belief, Tomita has reported other untrue incidents to parents to incite their anger and create police reports to get students she felt were guilty of committing crimes arrested or prosecuted. 28. Tomita has also interrogated students who are clients of O’Neal’s, without informing O’Neal and in an effort to block O’Neal from communicating with his own clients. 29. Tomita has conducted many of these interrogations without requesting parental consent or even notification or consent. 30. For instance, although a parent stated that Tomita could meet with a child-O’Neal’s client-if and only if O’Neal was present, Tomita still met with the student repeatedly, all without the parent’s permission. 31. This conduct is in violation of both DOE and professional standards.
COUNT I
(Indemnification, Contribution, Subrogation, and/or Reimbursement) 32. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 31 above are re-alleged and hereby incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in full herein. 33. If Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages as alleged in their First Amended Complaint, said injuries or damages are the liability and responsibility of Tomita. 34. If Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, Plaintiffs’ right of recovery is against Tomita and not O’Neal. 35. If there was any wrongful conduct on the part of O’Neal, O’Neal’s conduct was merely passive and secondary; whereas the negligence, liability, or other fault of Tomita was active and primary. 36. In the event that it is determined that O’Neal is liable to Plaintiffs, O’Neal is entitled to indemnification, contribution, subrogation, and/or reimbursement from Tomita.
COUNT II
(Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations) 37. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above are re-alleged and hereby incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in full herein. 38. At all relevant times, O’Neal had a valid contract to provide individual, group, family, and consultative services for students that attended HSDB.
3

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953406...
39. Tomita was aware or should have been aware of said contract. 40. Tomita had and continues to maintain a purposeful intent to interfere with said contract. 41. Tomita’s purposeful intent is evidenced by a concerted effort to tarnish O’Neal’s reputation at HSDB. 42. There is no justification on the part of Tomita for her tortious interference. 43. Tomita has much to gain by her tortious interference. 44. Only two providers in the State of Hawai’i-O’Neal and Tomita-provide individual, group, family, and consultative services to the deaf community. 45. By tortiously interfering with O’Neal’s contract, as described above, Tomita could ensure that she becomes the only provider, and thus be open to taking on all the students at HSDB. 46. As a direct and proximate result of Tomita’s tortious interference, O’Neal sustained damages in an amount to be shown at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, O’Neal prays as follows: A. That the First Amended Complaint against O’Neal be dismissed against him; B. That if Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment, such judgment be entered against Tomita, not O’Neal; C. That, if judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against O’Neal, O’Neal be awarded a corresponding judgment against Tomita; D. That, if it be determined that Tomita and O’Neal are joint tortfeasors with respect to the allegations of Plaintiffs, the relative degree of fault of each tortfeasor be determined and O’Neal be given a judgment over and against Tomita for the amount in excess of their pro rata share of such judgment; E. That judgment be entered in favor of O’Neal and against Tomita on all claims presented in this First Amended Third-Party Complaint; F. That general and special damages be awarded in O’Neal’s favor and against Tomita; G. That O’Neal’s be awarded his costs and attorneys’ fees in this Third-Party Complaint against Tomita; and H. That O’Neal be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, NOV 03 2011. <<signature>> RANDALL K. SCHMITT JORDON J. KIMURA
4

Jane DOE, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe,..., 2011 WL 10953406... Attorneys for Defendant SCOTT O’NEAL
5

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 120 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 892

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

JANE DOE, individually and ) CIVIL NO. 11-00550 KSC

as Next Friend of JOHN ROE, )

a minor; RICHARD ROE 1, ) ORDER GRANTING

Individually and on behalf ) CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS’

of JANE ROE 1, a minor; ) JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY

RICHARD ROE 2 AND MRS.

) CLASS, APPROVE NOTICE OF

RICHARD ROE 2, Individually ) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND TO

and on behalf of JANE ROE ) SET HEARING DATE FOR

2, a minor; all

) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Individually and on behalf )

of a class of persons

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF HAWAII; SCOTT

)

O’NEAL; SYDNEY DICKERSON; )

JOHN DOES 1-10; ENTITIES 1- )

10,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________ )

ORDER GRANTING CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPROVE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND TO SET HEARING DATE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Before the Court is the Consolidated

Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve

Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date

for Approval of Settlement (“Motion”), filed February

1, 2013. All parties joined in the Motion. This

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 120 Filed 02/19/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 893
matter came on for hearing on February 19, 2013. Glenn
Uesugi, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs; Eric
Seitz, Esq., appeared on behalf of Intervenor
Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendant Roxsanne Tomita;
Christopher Bouslog, Esq., appeared on behalf of
Intervenor Plaintiffs; Deputy Attorneys General John
Molay and Dennis Ferm appeared on behalf of Defendant
State of Hawaii; Jordon Kimura, Esq., appeared on
behalf of Defendant Scott O’Neal; and Deputy Attorney
General C. Bryan Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of
Defendant Sydney Dickerson in her individual capacity.
After careful consideration of the Motion, the
Joinders, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the
Motion and finds and orders as follows:
1. The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23(a) and (b) are met in this action. The Court finds specifically that the questions of law and fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. A class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
2. The class is defined as any student who is or was enrolled in the Hawaii School for the Deaf and Blind or the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and Blind, between August 10, 2001, and the date of approval
2

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 120 Filed 02/19/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 894
of this Settlement Agreement by the District Court, and who suffered injury as a result of one of the following:
• A sexual assault on the school grounds or on a school bus or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus involving another student or students;
• A sexual encounter involving a staff member; or • Witnessing a sexual assault or a coerced sexual
encounter involving another student on the school grounds or on the school bus or a sexual encounter involving a staff member and a student.
3. The Court hereby appoints Michael Green, John Rapp, Glenn Uesugi, Eric Seitz, and Christopher Bouslog as class counsel. These attorneys have adequate experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation and have knowledge of the applicable law. With numerous attorneys and their support staff available, said counsel have the resources sufficient to commit to representing the class.
4. The Court hereby appoints Riki May Amano as Claims Administrator.
5. The Court determines that the notice can most reasonably be provided via U.S. mail, and via publication in the Honolulu Star Advertiser. Notice shall be mailed by March 8, 2013, and shall be published once for 4 successive weeks, to commence on or before February 25, 2013.
6. The Court hereby approves the notice in the form attached to the Motion as Exhibit A, though it shall be modified prior to dissemination to include the following dates:
• the settlement hearing will take place on April 22,
3

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 120 Filed 02/19/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 895
2013 at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang; • the “opt out” date is April 5, 2013; • written notice of objections to any aspect of the settlement, including attorneys’ fees and costs, is due by April 5, 2013.
7. Any member of the class may enter an appearance in the lawsuit through a lawyer of his or her own choice if the member so desires.
8. Any member of the class may elect to exclude himself or herself from the class by filing a Notice stating that he or she elects to be excluded from the class with the clerk, United States District Court, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room C-338, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850-0338 and by mailing a copy to the attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants. Any person desiring to be excluded as a member of the class must file the notice with the Court on or before April 5, 2013.
9. Class members who do not elect to be excluded from the class will be bound by any judgment or order entered by the Court.
10. At this stage, the Court finds as a preliminary matter that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. A final hearing concerning the fairness of the settlement and the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is scheduled for April 22, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. At that time, class members who timely submitted written notices of objection to the settlement and/or the attorneys’ fees and costs shall have an opportunity to express their views concerning the settlement and the request for attorney’s fees and costs, and the Court shall make its final rulings regarding the fairness and appropriateness thereof.
4

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 120 Filed 02/19/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 896
11. Pursuant to FRCP 23(h)(3), the Court preliminarily finds that the requested attorneys’ fees are fair and reasonable. The attorneys have produced a substantial settlement fund. A percentage fee of said amount as requested is fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit their application for attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with FRCP 23(h) and Local Rule 54.3 by March 22, 2013. The parties have agreed that the application may be presented in simplified form. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 19, 2013.
_____________________________ Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge
Civil No. 11-00550 KSC; Doe, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al.; ORDER GRANTING CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPROVE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND TO SET HEARING DATE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
5

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1022

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

JANE DOE, individually and ) CIVIL NO. 11-00550 KSC

as Next Friend of JOHN ROE, )

a minor; RICHARD ROE 1, ) ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Individually and on behalf ) AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR

of JANE ROE 1, a minor; ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

RICHARD ROE 2 AND MRS.

)

RICHARD ROE 2, Individually )

and on behalf of JANE ROE )

2, a minor; all

)

Individually and on behalf )

of a class of persons

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STATE OF HAWAII; SCOTT

)

O’NEAL; SYDNEY DICKERSON; )

JOHN DOES 1-10; ENTITIES 1- )

10,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________ )

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

On April 22, 2013, the Court held a hearing on

the final approval of the settlement agreement, along

with Plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Neither the settlement nor the motions were opposed.

Michael Green, Esq., Glenn Uesugi, Esq., and John Rapp,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs; Eric Seitz,

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 1023
Esq., appeared on behalf of Intervenor Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendant Roxsanne Tomita; Christopher Bouslog, Esq., appeared on behalf of Intervenor Plaintiff A.P.; Deputy Attorneys General John Molay and Dennis Ferm appeared on behalf of Defendant State of Hawaii; Jordon Kimura, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Scott O’Neal; and Deputy Attorney General C. Bryan Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of Defendant Sydney Dickerson in her individual capacity. Also present were Special Master/Claims Administrator Judge Riki May Amano and Interpreter Jan Fried.
DISCUSSION The parties request that the Court approve the settlement and Plaintiffs request attorneys’ fees and costs as follows: 1) $209,424.00 in fees ($200,000 plus general excise tax) for each of Mr. Green, Mr. Uesugi, and Mr. Rapp; 2) $209,424.00 in fees for Mr. Seitz; 3) $104,712.00 in fees ($100,000.00 plus general excise tax); 4) $852.62 in costs for Mr. Green; 5) $35.00 in costs for Mr. Seitz; and 6) $3,477.78 in costs for Mr. Bouslog. There being no objection to the
2

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 1024
settlement or the motions, and after careful
consideration of the foregoing and application of the
relevant law, the Court HEREBY APPROVES the settlement
and GRANTS the motions for attorneys’ fees and costs.
A. Settlement
Class action settlements must be approved by
the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). In approving a
settlement, the court must “determine whether a
proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate,
and reasonable.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938,
959 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). Factors to be
considered in making such a determination include, but
are not limited to:
the strength of plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Id. (citations omitted). “To survive appellate review,
3

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 1025
the district court must show it has explored comprehensively all factors.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (citing Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 434 (1968)). The relative degree of significance that the court attaches to any factor depends upon the nature of the claim(s), the type(s) of relief sought, and the unique facts and circumstances presented by a given case. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, the court’s scrutiny of the settlement “must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Id. District courts should not reach any ultimate conclusions on the contested issues of fact and law underlying the merits of the dispute. Id. “Ultimately, the district court’s determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of
4

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 1026
delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.’” Id. (citation omitted).
A higher standard of fairness is required for settlement approval that takes place prior to formal class certification. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. However, the court must not overlook the fact that “voluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625.
In the present case, the Court finds that the proposed settlement, taken as a whole, is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court reaches this conclusion after exploring and considering all of the factors relevant to determining the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and after balancing these issues with the policy favoring settlement. Specifically, the Court makes the following findings: 1) because victory in litigation is never guaranteed, regardless of the strength of a plaintiff’s case, resolution by settlement is
5

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 1027
favorable; 2) the immediacy of recovery outweighs the risk of further litigation; 3) the settlement amount is reasonable under the circumstances; 4) Judge Amano’s involvement as a special master and the preparation of reports by and recommendations of neutral experts greatly assisted mediation and settlement discussions and dispensed of the need for the parties to engage in significant and costly discovery; 5) collectively, counsel for all parties have extensive experience and the recommendations of Plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness; and 6) the lack of objections to the proposed settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of the proposed settlement are favorable to the class members and militates in favor of approving the settlement. There is absolutely no evidence or even a suggestion that the settlement is the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties. Indeed, Judge Amano was appointed in November 2011 and has been actively involved in the case and settlement
6

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 1028
discussions since then. Accordingly, the Court
approves the settlement because it is fundamentally
fair, adequate, and reasonable.
B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23(h)
authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees and nontaxable
costs in certified class actions, and provides:
(h) Attorney’s Fees and Nontaxable Costs. In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement. The following procedures apply:
(1) A claim for an award must be made by motion under Rule 54(d)(2), subject to the provisions of this subdivision (h), at a time the court sets. Notice of the motion must be served on all parties and, for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in a reasonable manner.
(2) A class member, or a party from whom payment is sought, may object to the motion.
(3) The court may hold a hearing and must find the facts and state its legal conclusions under Rule 52(a).
(4) The court may refer issues related to the amount of the award to a special master or a magistrate judge, as provided
7

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 1029
in Rule 54(d)(2)(D). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). In common fund cases, courts have discretion to apply either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-the-fund method to determine attorneys’ fees. In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1994). “The common fund doctrine provides that a private plaintiff, or his attorney, whose efforts create, discover, increase[,] or preserve a fund to which others also have a claim is entitled to recover from the fund the costs of . . . litigation, including attorneys’ fees.” Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc., 557 F.2d 759, 769 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of Employees’ Ret. Sys. of Haw., 92 Hawai‘i 432, 439, 992 P.2d 127, 134 (2000). The doctrine is designed to prevent unjust enrichment by distributing the costs of litigation among those who benefit from the efforts of counsel and the litigants. Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 271 (9th Cir. 1989). Regardless of whether the “fees come from a common fund
8

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 1030
or are otherwise paid,” the court must assure the amount of fees paid are fair and proper. Staton, 327 F.3d at 964 (emphasis in original); Zucker v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 192 F.3d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir. 1999).
Under the percentage-of-recovery method, the court calculates the fee award by designating a percentage of the total common fund. Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit has established 25% as a benchmark. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; Paul, 886 F.2d at 272 (Twenty five percent is a proper benchmark figure in calculating attorneys’ fees in common fund cases). This percentage may be adjusted up or down, as appropriate. Paul, 886 F.2d at 272. If an adjustment is warranted, the court must provide a reasonable explanation of both “why the benchmark is unreasonable under the circumstances” and “how it arrive[s] at the figure ultimately awarded.” Id. at 272-73; Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002)
9

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 1031
(“The question is . . . whether in arriving at its percentage [the district court] considered all the circumstances of the case and reached a reasonable percentage.”). The Ninth Circuit has set forth a number of factors which may be relevant to the district court’s determination of the percentage ultimately awarded: 1) the results achieved; 2) the risk of litigation; 3) the skill required and quality of work; 4) the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by the plaintiffs; and 5) awards made in similar cases. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048-50.
One method of ensuring reasonableness is to compare the amount of fees to be awarded through the percentage method with the amount of fees to be awarded through the lodestar method. See Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Courts may compare the two methods of calculating attorney’s fees in determining whether fees are reasonable.”). The lodestar method “calculates the fee award by multiplying the number of hours reasonably
10

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 1032
spent by a reasonable hourly rate and then enhancing that figure, if necessary, to account for the risks associated with the representation.” Paul, 886 F.2d at 272. Multipliers of one to four are frequently awarded in common fund cases when the lodestar method is applied. Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 148 F.3d 283, 341 (3d Cir. 1998); Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 n.6 (describing appendix to opinion, finding a range of multipliers in common fund cases “of 0.6-19.6, with most (20 of 24, or 83%) from 1.0-4.0 and a bare majority (13 of 24, or 54%) in the 1.5-3.0 range”).
Here, the $900,000 request for attorneys’ fees plus general excise tax is reasonable. The Court has considered the factors relevant in assessing the reasonableness of fee requests and finds they weigh in favor of granting the requested fee award. In particular, the Court finds that 1) Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained a favorable result that benefits the class members; 2) if the case proceeded on its merits, there
11

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 1033
would have been extensive motions practice and there is a risk that Plaintiffs would recover nothing, or less than the amount generated by the settlement fund; 3) together, Plaintiffs’ counsel have extensive litigation experience and have litigated class actions and/or cases involving large groups of plaintiffs; 4) Plaintiffs’ counsel assumed representation of Plaintiffs on a contingency-fee basis and advanced the costs of litigation, despite the risk that they would receive no compensation; and 5) the fee request represents 15.65% of the total settlement award, which is well below the 25% benchmark established by the Ninth Circuit, and well below the fee awards in the 30% range commonly awarded in common fund cases. What is more, the Court has received no objections to the requested fees.
Finally, the Court shall award costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel as follows: 1) $852.56 to Mr. Green; 2) $3,477.78 to Mr. Bouslog; and 3) $35.00 to Mr. Seitz. Attorneys may recover their reasonable
12

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 1034
expenses that would typically be billed to paying clients in non-contingency matters. Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that these costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred. C. Additional Conditions
At the recommendation of Judge Amano, and without objection by the parties, the Court imposes the following conditions to ensure the smooth and orderly administration of claims: 1) no attorneys’ fees shall be paid from claimants’ funds; 2) no claimants’ funds shall be disbursed until final determinations have been made for all claims; 3) if there are insufficient funds to pay claimants in the amounts specified in the settlement agreement after claim determinations have been decided, Judge Amano shall have the discretion to determine the amounts for each tier level using a pro rata reduction notwithstanding the amounts specified in the settlement agreement; 4) all parties shall cooperate with Judge Amano with respect to the release
13

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 1035
of documents and records necessary to evaluate claims; 5) all documents in support of claims shall be confidential and shall be disposed of at Judge Amano’s discretion at the completion of the claims process; 6) all information provided by a claimant and/or a claimant’s family, or on behalf of the same, shall be confidential and shall not be released to anyone outside the claims administration process without a court order; and 7) the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, including but not limited to the administration of claims.
Furthermore, Judge Amano shall provide monthly reports and progress reports every three months until the administration of the claims is completed.
CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY APPROVES the settlement in this case and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. Doc. Nos. 123, 127, and 130.
14

Case 1:11-cv-00550-KSC Document 144 Filed 04/22/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 1036
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 22, 2013.
_____________________________ Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge
Civil No. 11-00550 KSC; Doe, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al.; ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
15

 
 DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
2013 WL 4771740 (D.Hawai’i) (Verdict, Agreement and Settlement) United States District Court, D. Hawai’i. DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i. No. 11CV00550. May 6, 2013.
Class Action Settlement Agreement
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs RICHARD ROE 1; JANE ROE 1, a minor, RICHARD ROE 2; MRS. RICHARD ROE 2; JANE ROE 2, a minor; JOCELYN COLLIER; T.L., a minor; MARIBEL OALESMA, M.T., a minor; ELVIRA DUMBRIQUE, NELSON DUMBRIQUE; C.D., a minor; OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN, appointed legal guardian of M.L., a minor; K.L.; A.P., L.P. AND T.P. (“Plaintiffs”), were named in (or intervened in) the First Amended Complaint filed on August 26, 2011 against the STATE OF HAWAII, SYDNEY DICKERSON, and SCOTT O’NEAL, (“Defendants”), as a class action alleging that Plaintiffs and others had been the victims of sexual assaults alleged to have occurred at the HAWAII SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, a school operated by the Department of Education, State of Hawaii;
WHEREAS, SCOTT O’NEAL, Cross-Complainant and Third Party Plaintiff, has filed a Cross Claim against the STATE OF HAWAII, SYDNEY DICKERSON, Cross Defendants and a THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against ROXSANNE TOMITA, Third Party Defendant;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, Defendants, Cross-Complainant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Defendants, and Third-Party Defendant (“the Parties”) have decided to resolve this matter without a determination of the merits of the Parties’ various claims;
WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid the time and expense of further litigation;
WHEREAS, the discussions have resulted in this Class Action Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”), which, subject to the approval of the District Court, settles this action in the manner and upon the terms set forth below;
WHEREAS, this Agreement, upon its effective date, settles any and all claims brought by Plaintiffs, Cross-Complainant, and Third Party Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al., Civil No. 11-000550 HG KSC, including, but not limited to claims for injunctive relief and monetary damages, in their entirety;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to stipulate as to a class for purposes of settlement only;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AND THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII (“DISTRICT COURT”) HEREBY APPROVES, the following Settlement Agreement that finally disposes of the claims for relief in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint:
I. Definitions
“Claim Form” means the form approved by the claims administrator for the purpose of determining the validity of the claim and the amount to which the claimant is entitled.
1

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
“Claims administrator” or “administrator” means the person approved by the District Court to administer the settlement. The parties have agreed, subject to District Court approval, that Judge Riki May Amano, Ret. will serve as the Claims Administrator.
“Class Counsel” means: Michael Jay Green, Glenn Uesugi, and John Rapp, 841 Bishop St., Suite 2201, Honolulu, HI 96813; Eric Seitz, 820 Mililani St., Suite 714, Honolulu, HI 96813; and Christopher Bouslog, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 480, Honolulu, HI 96813.
“Class Fund” means total class damages to be paid by Defendants.
“Class Notice” means notice in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
The “Class Period” is August 10, 2001 through the Effective Date, as defined below.
“District Court” mean the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
“Effective Date” means the date upon which a judgment entered by the District Court approving this Agreement becomes final. The judgment will be deemed final only upon expiration of the time to appeal, or if an appeal is filed, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for certiorari.
An “Opt-Out” is any potential Class Member who files a timely Request for Exclusion and approved by the District Court.
“Settlement Class” means those persons who meet the definition of the Class Definition, as set forth below.
“Settlement Class Member” (“SCM”) means any member of the Settlement Class who does not file a valid Request for Exclusion and who timely files a sworn statement of a claim.
II. Terms and Effects of Agreement
A. General Provisions for Settlement 1. Defendants agree solely for the purposes of this settlement and its implementation, that this action shall proceed as a class action as alleged in the First Amended Complaint, but if the District Court fails to approve this settlement and the parties return to litigation of this matter, Defendants retain the right to defend the action pursuant to any and all defenses previously asserted. Defendants retain all rights to object to the maintenance of the action as a class action.
2. The Plaintiffs have made two basic claims relating to the requested class and injunctive relief concerned: Defendants failed to properly supervise the students and/or school staff and Defendants attempted to cover up the alleged sexual assaults after becoming aware of the allegations.
3. Defendants challenged the merits of each of the above and contested whether this action should be certified for class action treatment.
4. For purposes of this settlement only, the Parties stipulate to the certification of the following class:
The Settlement Class is defined as any student who is or was enrolled in the Hawaii School for the Deaf and Blind or the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and Blind, between August 10, 2001 and the date of approval of this Settlement Agreement by the District Court, and who suffered injury as a result of one of the following:
2

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
* A sexual assault on the school grounds or on a school bus or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus involving another student or students;
* A sexual encounter involving a staff member; or
* Witnessing a sexual assault or a coerced sexual encounter involving another student on the school grounds or on the school bus or a sexual encounter involving a staff member and a student.
This class shall consist of the following subclasses:
a. A student who was a victim of a sexual assault or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus, and who was not a perpetrator in any sexual assault or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus, involving another student or students.
b. A student who was a victim of a sexual assault or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus, and who was a perpetrator in any sexual assault or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus, involving another student or students.
c. A student who was involved in a sexual encounter involving a staff member.
d. A student who witnessed a sexual assault or a coerced sexual encounter on the school grounds or on a school bus involving another student or students or a sexual encounter involving a staff member and a student.
5. This Agreement, as of the Effective Date, resolves in full all claims against the Released Persons by the SCMs, including the named Plaintiffs, involving alleged sexual assaults which occurred at the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and Blind, also known as the Hawaii School for the Deaf and Blind and any violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.), Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.), and the Individuals with Disabilities Acts (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.), as alleged in the First Amended Complaint, as a result of those alleged sexual assaults. As of the Effective Date, SCMs, including the named Plaintiffs, hereby release and agree to the dismissal with prejudice of all such claims, and waive any and all rights to pursue or commence any action or proceeding before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, or to file any complaint with regard to acts of commission or omission by the Released Persons relating to class members’ injuries arising from the alleged sexual assaults (“Released Claims”).
6. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to constitute an admission by the Defendants as to the validity or accuracy of any of the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint, or as to Defendants’ liability for any claim or of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The District Court has not issued any findings of any kind concerning the merit or lack of merit of Plaintiffs’ allegations herein. Any statements or arguments made on behalf of any Plaintiff or any Defendant in connection with, or at the settlement hearing on, or in support of the settlement, shall not be used as evidence or otherwise in any way in any subsequent trial, proceeding or hearing either in this action or in any other action or proceeding between all or any of the parties, should such occur.
7. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties about this action, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreement, and no such prior oral or written agreement shall be deemed to exist or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein. This Agreement can be amended only in writing and any such amendments must be signed by all parties, and approved by the District Court.
8. Each SCM shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the District Court.
9. The Parties acknowledge that the Settlement agreed to herein is the result of extensive litigation, negotiation and mediation, and represents the best settlement achievable for all SCM.
3

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
B. Settlement Funds
The following amounts as specified shall be paid on behalf of Defendants:
1. On behalf of Defendants State of Hawaii, Department of Education and Sydney Dickerson, $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars), subject to approval and funding by the Hawaii State Legislature;
2. On behalf of Defendant Scott O’Neal, $750,000.00 (seven hundred fifty thousand dollars);
3. No other party is required to contribute any funds to the Settlement Funds.
C. Specific Provisions
1. The State agrees to undertake certain specific actions relating to the management and operation of the Hawaii School for the Deaf and Blind.
2. The specific actions the State has agreed to undertake is set forth in Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement.
3. The parties agree that this Agreement may be enforced by either party through the filing of any appropriate motion to compel compliance and the parties specifically understand that nothing in this document is intended to limit the District Court’s inherent authority to enforce orders and agreements, in addition to any authority to enforce which is conferred on this District Court by rule, regulation or statute;
4. The parties agree that the “Specific Provisions” portion of this Agreement shall be enforceable under the terms of this Agreement and under this civil action for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date the Class Action Settlement Agreement becomes effective, as defined below. At the expiration of said eighteen (18) month period, any obligations of the Defendants to comply with the “Specific Provisions” portion of the agreement shall continue but shall not be enforceable under the pending action.
5. The Parties agree that SCMs have the right to initiate an action or proceedings to compel compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In the event of such an action or proceedings, Defendants recognize and agree that the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii shall have jurisdiction and further agree that Defendants shall not contest standing. If the SCMs believe that any of the State or its agents, assigns or successors is not in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then Class Counsel will give written notice to the Attorney General’s office specifying the non-compliance. The State will have a reasonable time of not less than 30 calendar days from receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged non-compliance and to provide written notice to Plaintiffs’ counsel in which they specify the actions taken to cure. Within 10 calendar days after receipt of the State’s written notice of the actions to cure, Plaintiffs and the State shall meet and confer. If an agreement is not reached by the Parties within 10 calendar days after meeting and conferring, then the Parties agree to mediate in good faith. The Parties agree that the mediation will be held with Keith Hunter, or if he is unavailable with a mediator at Dispute Prevention and Resolution (“DPR”). If the Parties are unable to agree on an alternative mediator, Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang, or his successor, shall select the mediator from DPR. The mediator’s fees and expenses shall be paid by the State. The Parties will bear their own respective attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses related to all matters set forth in this subparagraph. However, in the event mediation is unsuccessful and legal action ensues, the prevailing party in the litigation shall be entitled to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees subject to the discretion of the court. Should the Court award such fees, the Court may, in its discretion, consider the relative success or not of the prevailing party. Nothing in this Paragraph shall prevent or limit the prevailing party from seeking fees and costs associated with an unsuccessful mediation. Within 30 calendar days of the commencement of mediation, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties, the SCMs have the right to initiate an action or proceeding to compel compliance with this Settlement Agreement. Such action will be brought only after exhausting the procedures above.
4

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
6. The Parties recognize and agree that the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii shall have jurisdiction to resolve any such claims to compel compliance with this Settlement Agreement, and that the court’s jurisdiction shall be limited to such claims to compel compliance and shall include no other claims, including claims otherwise pendent thereto. The Parties agree that the Plaintiffs in this case shall have standing to initiate and maintain such an action or proceeding. In such action or proceeding, the prevailing party in the litigation shall be entitled to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees. In awarding such fees, the Court may, in its discretion, consider the relative success or not of the prevailing party. The right to institute litigation or proceedings as set forth in this Paragraph shall terminate eighteen (18) months from the date of approval of this Settlement Agreement.
7. It is understood between the Parties that a violation of the Specific Provisions portion of this Agreement shall not be material or actionable unless it is determined by the District Court to be material and actionable.
8. The State, through it counsel, shall provide Class Counsel with a report as to the status of the agreed upon specific actions three (3) months after approval of this Settlement Agreement, and every three (3) months thereafter, and shall provide a final status report one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement.
D. Attorney’s Fees
The parties agree that Class Counsel may apply to the District Court for Class Fund Attorney’s Fees in the following amounts: $200,000 each for Michael Green, John Rapp, Glenn Uesugi and Eric Seitz; and $100,000 for Christopher Bouslog. Class Counsel may also apply for costs and general excise taxes. The total amount to be paid hereunder shall not exceed $1 million. Class counsel may submit said application at the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (discussed below, in Section III. A. of this Agreement). Defendants agree that an award of fees, general excise taxes and costs in the amounts set forth above is reasonable. Defendants will not oppose Class Counsel in their motion for Class Fund Attorney’s Fees, General Excise Taxes and Costs as set out in this paragraph.
E. Monetary Damages
1. Payment of the amounts set forth above, by the State, is subject to appropriation by the Legislature, as required by law. The Defendants shall use their best efforts to seek appropriation by the Legislature.
2. The Claims Administrator will divide and distribute the Class Fund remaining after distribution and payment of attorney’s fees, case costs and administrative costs individually to class members to exhaust available funds proportionately based upon the following damage schedule: First Tier Compensation--$20,000
Second Tier Compensation--$75,000
Third Tier Compensation--$200,000
These amounts are the minimum amounts, and may be increased at the sole discretion of the Claims Administrator.
To be awarded the Second or Third Tier of compensation, the claimant would have to offer additional information regarding the severity, duration and impact upon the individual SCM. Consideration to be used to determine the level of compensation will include, but not be limited to: The use of coercion or threats; the amount of force associated with, and the type and frequency of, the abuse; and the pain and suffering of the claimant as evidenced by such factors such as erratic job history, mental health treatment, substance abuse, or other evidence of physical, psychological, and emotional issues.
5

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
3. It is agreed among the Parties that the schedule set forth above does not constitute an admission by the Defendants as to the value of any future claim for damages arising out of alleged sexual assaults, but is solely a means for equitably distributing the Settlement Fund. The Parties further agree that no part of the Settlement Agreement may be used to establish the value of future claims because the values are unique to this action and the underlying facts and circumstances.
4. The determination of the value of each SCM’s claim will be based upon review of the Claims Forms to be completed by each SCM. It shall be up to the Claims Administrator to determine the validity of the information contained on the Claims Forms. The Claims Administrator has the right to request additional supporting documentation, and the individual must submit the additional supporting documentation within 45 days of a request from the Claims Administrator.
5. The determination as to whether a class member is entitled to compensation for an alleged sexual assault shall be based on the Claims Forms and required supporting documentation (if any) to be completed by each potential SCM.
6. The final determination of the value of a claim of an individual SCM is at the sole discretion of the Claims Administrator based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard. This determination of the Claims Administrator is final and non-appealable by any party or SCM. By submitting a Claim Form, potential class members agree to be bound by the determinations of the Claims Administrator, waive any right to appeal, and waive any cause of action against the Claims Administrator for negligence or gross negligence in relation to administration and distribution of the Class Fund.
7. If the total value of claims paid, not including claims brought by the individuals that choose to Opt-Out of the settlement, is less than the value of the Class Fund minus Class Fund Attorney’s Fees and case costs and the administrative costs, the remainder of the Class Fund shall be distributed pro rata in a formula to be determined by the Claims Administrator, increasing the compensation of each individual SCM. This pro rata formula is at the sole discretion of the Claims Administrator. By submitting a Claim Form, potential class members agree to be bound by the determinations of the Claims Administrator, waive any right to appeal, and waive any cause of action against the Claims Administrator for negligence or gross negligence in relation to the determination of this pro rata formula, and its implementation.
8. All funds due under this Agreement shall be paid into a special trust or class settlement account established by the Claims Administrator, and shall be distributed from there pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Interest earned from any such accounts is part of the Class Fund. Upon receipt of said funds and without further order of the Court, the Claims Administrator is authorized to immediately pay the following: (a) any attorney fees and costs to Class Counsel approved by the Court by check made payable to the Trust Accounts of Class Counsel; (b) reimbursement of any administrative costs to the administrator approved by the Court; (c) reimbursement to the State of the one-half of the fees of the Court-Appointed Master, Judge Riki May Amano (Ret.).
9. Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees to join or express no opposition in any motion to dismiss any and all actions arising out of any released claims brought by a SCM. The Claims Administrator shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants whether any claim brought by a SCM involve a “released claim” and shall prepare a declaration to that effect which shall be submitted to the Court.
10. The Claims Administrator shall not incur any liability to the State of Hawaii or any of the Parties for any actions taken in connection with his duties processing and paying claims from the Class Fund.
F. Miscellaneous Provisions
1. The Parties agree they are jointly responsible for the fees of the Court-Appointed Master, Judge Riki May Amano (Ret.). The Parties agree the State shall be responsible for one-half of Judge Amano’s fees and the remaining one-half shall be paid from the Plaintiffs Settlement Fund, once the funds have been appropriated by the Legislature and released. Judge Amano’s fees are not to be considered Plaintiffs costs and in no way affect the distributions referenced in II.D. herein. The Department
6

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
of the Attorney General will advance the payment of Judge Amano’s fees from its litigation expenses fund. Reimbursement of Plaintiffs one-half share that was advanced by the Department of the Attorney General shall be paid from the Plaintiffs Settlement Fund, once the funds have been appropriated by the Legislature and released
2. Plaintiff-Intervenors AP, LP and TP through their counsel shall within 5 business days following approval of the Settlement Agrement enactment into law of the settlement contained herein file a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against The State of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii Department of Education in Civil Number 10-1-0276-02 RAN, filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii.
4. The parties agree that any reports prepared by experts for the purpose of this litigation, and paid for by the State of Hawaii, Department of Education, are the property of the State and may not be released by any other party, without the express written permission of the State of Hawaii, Department of Education or a court order. Class Counsel is not responsible for the payment of the costs of any reports prepared for the purpose of this litigation.
5. To the extent possible under applicable laws, rules and regulations, any funds received by any SCM pursuant to this Agreement, shall not be utilized to disqualify, reduce, affect or prevent any class member from receiving any public entitlements and money.
III. Steps for Seeking Settlement Approval
Plaintiffs and Defendants shall jointly take all necessary steps in appropriate sequence as follows:
A. Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement The Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement within 30 days of execution of this Agreement by the parties. Defendants will join in support of this motion.
B. Class Notice
The parties believe, and will so represent to the District Court, that the best notice practicable under the circumstances of these cases is as follows:
1. It is understood and agreed by the Parties, that the cost of notification will be paid by the Department of the Attorney General as a litigation administrative expense.
2. Direct notice by mail to potential class members (former students) as identified by the State of Hawaii on lists compiled by the State of Hawaii, containing the last known address of potential SCMs.
3. Notice published once in each of three successive weeks in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each County within the State of Hawaii wherein such a newspaper is published.
4. The class notice shall advise potential SCMs that they will be bound by the judgment in this action unless within 30 days or such other time set by the District Court after the first date of the publication of the notice they file a written election to be excluded from the class, and providing further that each member of the class who did not file a written election to be excluded will be required to file, within such time limit as may be set by the District Court upon the recommendation of the Claims Administrator a sworn statement of claim or be forever barred from recovery in these actions.
5. Class notice will further advise that those who would like to file objections to the proposed Settlement must do so within 30 days after the first date of the publication of the notice; and that the hearing on any
7

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013)
6. The Claims Administrator shall be responsible for ensuring the class notifications by publication and mailing are completed, and for certifying completion of the same to the District Court.
C. Final Approval of Settlement and Distribution of Funds; Final Judgment Within a time to be set by the District Court, the Claims Administrator shall complete review of all claims and shall submit to the District Court, with copies to the Parties, a “Plan of Allocation,” which shall set forth a plan or formula for allocation of the Class Fund, whereby the Class Fund shall be distributed to SCMs after payment of expenses of notice and administration of the fund and such attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses as earlier approved by the District Court. Upon determination that the proposed Plan of Allocation is consistent with this Agreement, the District Court shall issue an order granting final approval of settlement and distribution of funds and enter a final judgment dismissing all claims in this action with prejudice as to all Defendants as of the effective date. The Claims Administrator shall make payment as authorized within a time to be set by the District Court. If there is an appeal of the District Court’s final approval of Settlement and Distribution of Funds, the Defendants will join the Plaintiffs in defense of the District Court’s decision. Dated: February 1, 2013 By: <<signature>> JOHN F. MOLAY Deputy Attorney General Counsel for State of Hawaii. Department of Education Dated: February 1, 2013 By: <<signature>> CHRISTIAN B. FITZGERALD Deputy Attorney General Counsel for Sydney Dickerson Dated: February 5, 2013 By: <<signature>> RANDALL K. SCHMITT Counsel for Scott O’Neal Dated: February 1, 2013 By: <<signature>>
8

DOE, et al., v. State of Hawai’i., 2013 WL 4771740 (2013) MICHAEL J. GREEN Class Counsel Dated: February 1, 2013 By: <<signature>> GLENN UESUGI Class Counsel Dated: February 6, 2013 By: <<signature>> JOHN RAPP Class Counsel Dated: February 1, 2013 By: <<signature>> ERIC SEITZ Class Counsel and Counsel for Roxsanne Tomita Dated: February ___, 2013 By: ______________________________ CHRISTOPHER BOUSLOG Class Counsel
9

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 1 of 23
CLOSED,CONSENT,SM
U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−00550−KSC

Doe et al v. State of Hawaii et al Assigned to: JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Special Master Riki May Amano
Plaintiff Jane Doe Individually and as Next Friend of JOHN DOE, a minor, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated next friend John Doe
Plaintiff Richard Roe 1 Individually and on behalf of JANE ROE 1, a minor, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated on behalf of Jane Roe 1

Date Filed: 09/09/2011 Date Terminated: 04/23/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Riki May Amano Dispute Prevention &Resolutions, Inc. Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop St. Ste. 1155 Honolulu, HI 96813 808−523−1234 PRO SE
represented by Glenn H. Uesugi 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, HI 96813 521−3336 Fax: 566−0347 Email: glenn.uesugi@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Rapp 810 Richards St Ste 810 Honolulu, HI 96813−4721 8084285363 Fax: 8085212870 Email: johnjrapp@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Green 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hi 96813 521−3336 Email: michaeljgreen@hawaii.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn H. Uesugi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Rapp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 2 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Roe 2 Individually and on behalf of Jane Roe 2, a minor, and on behalf of a class of persons similary situated on behalf of Jane Roe 2

represented by Glenn H. Uesugi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Rapp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Jay Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mrs. Richard Roe 2 Individually and on behalf of JANE ROE 2, a minor, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated on behalf of Jane Roe 2

represented by Glenn H. Uesugi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Rapp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Jay Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Jocelyn Collier

represented by Della A. Belatti Eric A. Seitz, AAL, ALC 820 Mililani Street Suite 714 Honolulu, HI 96813 533−7434 Email: daubelatti@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Seitz A Law Corporation 820 Mililani St Ste 714 Honolulu, HI 96813 533−7434 Email: eseitzatty@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald N.W. Kim Eric A. Seitz AAL ALC 820 Mililani Street, Ste. 714 Honolulu, HI 96813 533−7434 Fax: 545−3608 Email: rkim.seitzoffice@yahoo.com

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 3 of 23

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Maribel Oallesma

represented by Della A. Belatti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric A. Seitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald N.W. Kim (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Elvira Dumbique

represented by Della A. Belatti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric A. Seitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald N.W. Kim (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Nelson Dumbique

represented by Della A. Belatti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric A. Seitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald N.W. Kim (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii Appointed legal guardian of M.L., a minor guardian ad litem M. L.

represented by Della A. Belatti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Seitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 4 of 23

Ronald N.W. Kim (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff A. P.

represented by Christopher S. Bouslog Law Offices of Chris Bouslog Four Waterfont Plaza Ste 480 500 Ala Moana Blvd Unit 129 Honolulu, HI 96813−4920 550−4995 Fax: 550−4996 Email: chris@csbhawaiilaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff L. P.

represented by Christopher S. Bouslog (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff T. P.

represented by Christopher S. Bouslog (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant State of Hawaii

represented by Caron M. Inagaki Office of the Attorney General−State of Hawaii 425 Queen St 2nd Flr Honolulu, HI 96813 586−1494 Fax: 586−1369 Email: Caron.M.Inagaki@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly T. Shikada Department of the Attorney General Education Division 235 S Beretania St Rm 304 Honolulu, HI 96813 586−1255 Email: holly.t.shikada@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Molay Office of the Attorney General−State of Hawaii Civil Rights Litigation 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 586−1494 Fax: 587−3077 Email: john.f.molay@hawaii.gov

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 5 of 23

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis K. Ferm Department of the Attorney General−State of Hawaii 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813 587−2985 Email: dennis.k.ferm@hawaii.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey E. Henderson , Jr. Department of the Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 586−1219 Email: harvey.e.hendersonjr@hawaii.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Scott O'Neal

represented by Jordon Jun Kimura McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP Five Waterfront Plaza Ste 400 500 Ala Moana Blvd Honolulu, HI 96813 529−7300 Email: kimura@m4law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J. Mansfield McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP Five Waterfront Plaza Ste 400 500 Ala Moana Blvd Honolulu, HI 96813 529−7300 Fax: 535−8064 Email: mansfield@m4law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall K. Schmitt McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP Five Waterfront Plaza Ste 400 500 Ala Moana Blvd Honolulu, HI 96813 529−7300 Email: schmitt@m4law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sydney Dickerson

represented by C. Bryan Fitzgerald Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 808 586−0937 Email: christian.b.fitzgerald@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 6 of 23

Defendant John Does 1−10
Defendant Peter Poes 1−100
Defendant Patricia Poes 1−100
Defendant Parent Poes 1−100
Interested Party Robert Pollard, Ph.D. Robert_Pollard@urmc.rochester.edu
Counter Claimant State of Hawaii

Deborah Day Emerson Office of the Attorney General−Hawaii 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813 586−1500 Email: deborah.d.emerson@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caron M. Inagaki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Holly T. Shikada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Counter Defendant
Jane Doe Individually and as Next Friend of JOHN DOE, a minor, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

represented by Glenn H. Uesugi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Rapp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 7 of 23

Counter Defendant John Does 1−10
ThirdParty Plaintiff State of Hawaii

represented by Caron M. Inagaki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly T. Shikada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey E. Henderson , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. ThirdParty Defendant Peter Poes 1−100
ThirdParty Defendant Patricia Poes 1−100
ThirdParty Defendant Parent Poes 1−100
ThirdParty Plaintiff Scott O'Neal

represented by Jordon Jun Kimura (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J. Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall K. Schmitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. ThirdParty Defendant Roxsanne Tomita
Cross Claimant

represented by Eric A. Seitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 8 of 23

Scott O'Neal

represented by Jordon Jun Kimura (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J. Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall K. Schmitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant Sydney Dickerson
Cross Defendant State of Hawaii
ThirdParty Plaintiff Scott O'Neal

represented by C. Bryan Fitzgerald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Day Emerson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caron M. Inagaki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly T. Shikada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jordon Jun Kimura (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J. Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall K. Schmitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 9 of 23

ThirdParty Defendant Roxsanne Tomita

represented by Eric A. Seitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/09/2011 09/09/2011 09/09/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011
09/14/2011 09/15/2011

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by defendant State of Hawaii. Removal from Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Civil case number 11−1−1712−08 (GWBC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (afc) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
2 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:00AM on 10/17/2011 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/9/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Disclosure Memo) (afc) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
3 Filing fee: $ 350.00, receipt number HI000998 re 1 Notice of Removal. (afc) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
4 ANSWER to Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against Jane Doe, John Does 1−10 by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) Modified on
9/14/2011: Defendant State of Hawaii's COUNTERCLAIM is stated on page numbered 12,
paragraph numbered 53 et seq. (afc) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
5 MOTION for Leave to File Third Party Complaint John F. Molay appearing for Defendant State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
6 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear Motion re 5 MOTION for Leave to File Third Party Complaint John F. Molay appearing for Defendant State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John F. Molay, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
7 MOTION to Proceed Anonymously and to Allow Parties to File Documents Under Seal John F. Molay appearing for Defendant State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
8 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear Motion re 7 MOTION to Proceed Anonymously and to Allow Parties to File Documents Under Seal John F. Molay appearing for Defendant State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John F. Molay, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Jordon Jun Kimura on behalf of Scott O'Neal on behalf of Scott O'Neal. (Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
13 TRANSMITTAL of DOCUMENTS by Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Computerized Index, # 2 Civil Information Sheet, # 3 Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial; Summons, # 4 Return of Service − State of Hawaii thru John Cregor, # 5 Additional Claims Information Sheet, # 6 First Amended Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial; Summons, # 7 Return of Service − Sydney Dickerson, # 8 Return of Service − Scott O'Neal, # 9 Return of Service of 1st Amended Complaint − Sydney Dickerson, # 10 Return of Service of 1st Amended Complaint − Scott O'Neal, # 11 Notice of Removal with Exhibits) (afc) (Entered: 09/17/2011)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scott O'Neal re 9 Notice of Appearance Amended Certificate of Service (Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
11 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 5 . Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 9/15/2011.
~ Order further denies as moot defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing the
Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint (doc no. 6 ). (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 10 of 23

09/15/2011
09/20/2011 09/21/2011 09/21/2011 09/22/2011
09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 09/23/2011 09/28/2011

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications.
(Entered: 09/15/2011)
12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT STATE OF HAWAII'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ALLOW PARTIES TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND TO ALLOW PARTIES TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 7 . Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 9/15/2011. ~ Order further denies as moot defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for
Hearing the Motion for Leave to Allow Parties to Proceed Anonymously and to Allow Parties to
File Documents Under Seal (doc no. 8 ). (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications.
(Entered: 09/15/2011)
14 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Peter Poes 1−100, Patricia Poes 1−100, Parent Poes 1−100, filed by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
15 Defendant Scott O'Neal's ANSWER to Complaint (First Amended), THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Roxsanne Tomita, CROSSCLAIM against Sydney Dickerson, State of Hawaii by Scott O'Neal. (Attachments: # 1 Cross−claim Against the State of Hawaii and Sydney Dickerson, # 2 Third−Party Complaint Against Roxsanne Tomita, # 3 Summons, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Kimura, Jordon) Modified on 9/22/2011 (afc). (Entered: 09/21/2011)
16 MOTION for Protective Order Jordon Jun Kimura appearing for Defendant Scott O'Neal (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Randall K. Schmitt, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Certificate of Service)(Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
ADVISORY ENTRY (documents need not be refiled; this advisory is for the filing party's future reference). Signature on documents differs from the ECF login and password re: e−filings on behalf of defendant Scott O'Neal, docket entry nos. 15 and 16 . As the documents were e−filed by the login assigned to Jordon Kimura, the signature on the documents is to reflect the ECF user's signature (/s/Jordon Kimura). Filing party may refer to Local Rules 100.5.1 "Use of Login and Password, 100.5.2 "ECF User's Signature." (afc) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
17 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Cross−Claim Defendant Sydney Dickerson, Cross−Claim Defendant State of Hawaii, and Third−Party Defendant Roxsanne Tomita. re: 15 Answer, Crossclam, Third−party Complaint. (afc) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
18 Errata re 14 Third Party Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
19 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Third−Party Defendants Peter Poes 1−100, Patricia Poes 1−100, and Parent Poes 1−100 re: 14 Third−party Complaint filed by State of Hawaii. (afc) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
20 ANSWER to 15 Cross−Claim of Scott O' Neal and Demand for Jury Trial Answer to Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Crossclaim, by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) Modified on 9/26/2011 − clarifying title of document (afc). (Entered: 09/23/2011)
21 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 16 Defendant Scott O'Neal's MOTION for Protective Order set for 12/5/2011 at 09:00 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. (lls, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 09/28/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 11 of 23

09/28/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/05/2011 10/06/2011
10/06/2011

22 Plaintiff Jane Doe, Individually and as next friend of John Doe, a minor's REPLY TO 4 DEFENDANT STATE OF HAWAII'S COUNTERCLAIM ; Certificate of Service. (afc) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
23 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scott O'Neal. Roxsanne Tomita served on 9/29/2011 9/28/2011, answer due 10/20/2011 10/19/2011. (Kimura, Jordon) Modified on 10/4/2011 − striking text (bbb, ). Service re: 15 Third Party Complaint. (afc) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
24 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear Motion for Protective Order, Filed September 21, 2011 Jordon Jun Kimura appearing for Defendant Scott O'Neal, ThirdParty Plaintiff Scott O'Neal, Cross Claimant Scott O'Neal (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jordon J. Kimura, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scott O'Neal re 24 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear Motion for Protective Order, Filed September 21, 2011 (Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
26 EO: At counsel's request, Status Conference Re: Request for Special Master appointment set for 10/6/2011 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Eric Seitz has notified all parties. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 10/04/2011)
27 MOTION for Joinder re 24 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear Motion for Protective Order, Filed September 21, 2011 John F. Molay appearing for Defendant State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
28 EP: Status Conference Re: Request for Special Master appointment held on 10/6/2011. Counsel Dennis Ferm, Eric Seitz and Sarah Devine present. Discussion held regarding appointment of Special Master. Counsel to submit a Stipulation regarding appointment of a Special Master. Counsel considering Riki Amano. ( C5 − no record, 9:00−9:15am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 10/06/2011)
29 EO: Re−Defendant Scott ONeal, Third Party Plaintiff Scott ONeal and Cross Claimant Scott ONeal's Motion to Shorten Time to hear Motion for Protective Order, filed September 21, 2011 (Doc. 24) and Defendant State of Hawaiis Motion for Joinder re 24 Motion to Shorten Time to hear Motion for Protective Order, Filed September 21, 2011 (Doc. 27) are hereby GRANTED.Defendant Scott ONeal's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 16) is set for hearing on 10/14/2011 at 11:15 a.m. before the Honorable David A. Ezra. Briefing Schedule−The parties are directed to file any opposition by 10/12/2011. (JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA)(lls, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

10/10/2011 10/10/2011 10/10/2011 10/10/2011
10/10/2011
10/11/2011

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 10/06/2011)
30 Scheduling Conference Statement. (Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
31 Scheduling Conference Statement Plaintiffs. (Rapp, John) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
32 REPORT of Planning Meeting Plaintiffs. (Rapp, John) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
33 Scheduling Conference Statement. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis K. Ferm on behalf of State of Hawaii on behalf of State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ferm, Dennis) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
35 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re: 16 to "Defendant Scott O'Neal's Motion for Protective Order" filed September 21, 2011 filed by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Michael Jay Green, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Rapp, John) Modified on 10/11/2011 to

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 12 of 23

10/11/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/13/2011 10/13/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011
10/17/2011
10/17/2011

add document number link to correlate to the underlying Motion for Protective Order, (doc 16)
(afc). (Entered: 10/11/2011)
36 RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION for Protective Order filed by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John F. Molay, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
37 REPLY re 16 MOTION for Protective Order, 35 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Scott O'Neal. (Schmitt, Randall) Modified on 10/13/2011: ERRATA e−filed; please refer to docket entry no. 39 (afc). (Entered: 10/12/2011)
38 DEFENDANT SYDNEY DICKERSON, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, ANSWER to Complaint (TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED AUGUST 26, 2011) by Sydney Dickerson.(Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
39 Errata re 16 MOTION for Protective Order, 37 Reply, 35 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,. (Schmitt, Randall) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
40 DEFENDANT SYDNEY DICKERSON, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, ANSWER to 15 Answer to Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Crossclaim, (ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS CROSS−CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE OF HAWAII AND SYDNEY DICKERSON) by Sydney Dickerson.(Fitzgerald, C.) Modified on 10/14/2011 (afc). (Entered: 10/13/2011)
41 ANSWER to 15 Answer to Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Crossclaim − by Roxsanne Tomita.(Seitz, Eric) Modified on 10/14/2011 (afc). (Entered: 10/13/2011)
42 Scheduling Conference Statement filed by attorney for defendant Sydney Dickerson (Fitzgerald, C.) Modified on 10/14/2011: Document is captioned as "Defendant State of Hawaii's Scheduling Conference Statement" (afc) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
43 NOTICE by Sydney Dickerson re 42 Scheduling Conference Statement, NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DEFENDANT STATE OF HAWAIIS SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT FILED OCTOBER 14, 2011 Sydney Dickerson. (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
44 EP: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2011 re 16 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Scott O'Neal. Court to issue order. 16 Defendant Scott O'Neal's Motion for Protective Order−DENIED without prejudice.Court to issue order. (Court Reporter Cynthia Fazio.) (JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA)(tl, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 10/14/2011)
45 Scheduling Conference Statement and Certificate of Service. (Seitz, Eric) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
46 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SCOTT O'NEAL'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 16 . Signed by JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA on 10/14/2011. [Order follows hearing held 10/14/2011 on Motion, doc no. 16. Minutes of hearing: doc no. 44 ] (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications.
(Entered: 10/14/2011)
47 EP: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on 10/17/2011. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Order to be issued. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 10/23/2012 before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/11/2012 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Settlement Conference set for 7/5/2012 10:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Motions due by 5/23/2012. Discovery due by 8/24/2012. (C5 − no record, 9:00−9:05am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 10/17/2011)
48 RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 10/17/2011. (afc)

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 13 of 23

11/03/2011 11/04/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011 11/09/2011
11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/18/2011
11/22/2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 10/17/2011)
49 Amended THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Roxsanne Tomita, filed by Scott O'Neal.(Schmitt, Randall) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
50 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Plaintiffs − Eric A. Seitz, Ronald N.W. Kim, Della A. Belatti appearing for Movants Jocelyn Collier, Maribel Oallesma, Elvira Dumbique, Nelson Dumbique. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eric A. Seitz, # 2 Certificate of Service) (afc) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
52 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 50 Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiffs set for 1/27/2012 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 11/08/2011)
53 STATEMENT of No Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiffs filed on November 4, 2011 filed by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2. (Rapp, John) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
54 Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Guardians Ad Litem Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 11/8/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eric A. Seitz, # 2 Order Appointing Guardians Ad Litem, # 3 Certificate of Service)(gab, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 11/09/2011)
55 INITIAL DISCLOSURE by Sydney Dickerson. (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
56 INITIAL DISCLOSURE by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
57 INITIAL DISCLOSURE by Scott O'Neal. (Klein, Robert) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
58 INITIAL DISCLOSURE by Scott O'Neal. (Schmitt, Randall) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 57 Initial Disclosure filed by Scott O'Neal,
was filed incorrectly in this case. The filing party informed the Clerk's Office of the error and filed the document correctly. Refer to docket entry 58 Initial Disclosure filed by Scott O'Neal. No further
action necessary. (eps) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
59 INITIAL DISCLOSURES; Certificate of Service − filed by plaintiffs. (afc) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
61 STIPULATION TO APPOINT A MASTER; ORDER. Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 11/17/2011. ~ Riki May Amano appointed as Special Master. (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications. Riki May Amano, Esq. will be served on November 21, 2011 by First Class Mail addressed to Special Master Amano at address Dispute Prevention &Resolutions, Inc./Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop St. Ste. 1155/ Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
(Entered: 11/18/2011)
62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sydney Dickerson (Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions) (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 11/22/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 14 of 23

11/22/2011 11/22/2011 12/02/2011 12/05/2011

63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sydney Dickerson (Plaintiff Jane Doe's Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Defendants) (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sydney Dickerson (Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents to All Defendants and Roxanne Tomita) (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
65 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiff − Della A. Belatti, Ronald N.W. Kim, Eric A. Seitz appearing for Movant (Proposed plaintiff−intervenor) Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eric A. Seitz, # 2 Certificate of Service)(afc) (Entered: 12/04/2011)
66 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 65 Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiff set for 1/27/2012 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )

12/06/2011
12/06/2011 12/06/2011 12/13/2011 01/05/2012 01/05/2012 01/05/2012 01/06/2012 01/06/2012 01/13/2012
01/27/2012
03/08/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 12/05/2011)
67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2 Plaintiffs' Request for Admission to Defendants, Plaintiff Jane Doe's Request for Answers to Interrogatories to All Defendants; Plaintiff Jane Doe's Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Defendant Scott O'Neal; Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents to All Defendants and Roxanne Tomita (Rapp, John) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2 Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents to All Defendants and Roxanne Tomita (Rapp, John) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
69 Plaintiffs' STATEMENT of No Opposition re 65 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Plaintiff; Certificate of Service. (afc) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
70 STIPULATION and Order Extending the Deadline to Amend Pleadings by Sydney Dickerson. (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
71 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 65 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Plaintiff filed by Sydney Dickerson. (Fitzgerald, C.) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
72 RESPONSE re 50 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
73 RESPONSE re 65 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Plaintiff filed by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
74 Joinder re 72 Response filed by State of Hawaii to Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiffs filed by Scott O'Neal. (Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
75 Joinder re 73 Response filed by State of Hawaii to Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiff filed by Scott O'Neal. (Kimura, Jordon) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
76 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Plaintiff, 50 MOTION to Intervene Supplemental Declaration of Eric A. Seitz filed by Maribel Oallesma, Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii, Roxsanne Tomita. (Seitz, Eric) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
77 EP: granting 50 Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiffs; granting 65 Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Plaintiff held on 1/27/2012. Motions granted. Mr. Seitz to prepare the Orders.( FTR C5 − 9:37−9:45am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 01/27/2012)
78 EO: The time for the Settlement Conference set for 10:00am on 7/5/2012 shall be moved to 11:00 AM on 7/5/2012 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 15 of 23

03/19/2012 04/11/2012 04/18/2012 06/15/2012 07/05/2012 07/09/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 03/08/2012)
79 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 27, 2012, − before Judge Kevin S.C. Chang. Court Reporter/Transcriber Adrianne Ige Kurasaki, Telephone number 294.3397. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or ordered through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript. Remote availability of electronic transcripts is regulated by FRCP 5.2(a),FRCrP 49.1(a) and FRBP 9037(a) Redaction Request due 4/6/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/16/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/14/2012. (Kurasaki, Adrianne) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
81 ORDER GRANTING MOTION[s] TO INTERVENE ~ re 50 MOTION to Intervene filed by Elvira Dumbique, Maribel Oallesma, Nelson Dumbique, Jocelyn Collier, AND 65 MOTION for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Plaintiff filed by Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii. Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 4/10/2012. Order follows hearing held 1/27/2012. Minutes: doc 77 (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/11/2012)
82 STIPULATION TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINER; ATTACHMENT "A"; ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A) Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 4/18/2012. ~Robert Pollard, Ph.D.,
Professor of Psychiatry and Director, Deaf Wellness Center/University of Rochester School of
Medicine, is appointed as the Independent Mental Health Examiner ~ (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). DR. ROBERT POLLARD, JUDGE RIKI MAY AMANO, and participants not registered to receive electronic notifications, will be served by first class mail on April 19, 2012.
(Entered: 04/18/2012)
83 EO: Settlement Conference set 7/5/12 is hereby vacated. Status Conference set for 7/5/2012 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 06/15/2012)
84 EP: Status Conference held on 7/5/2012. Counsel Harvey Henderson also present. Mr. Seitz informed the Court that the IME has been completed and counsel are waiting for the report. New trial date given. First Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Order to be issued. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 8/6/2013 before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/25/2013 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Settlement Conference set for 11/2/2012 11:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Discovery due by 6/7/2013. Motions due by 3/6/2013. (C5 − no record, 9:00−9:05am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 07/05/2012)
85 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 7/9/2012. (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 07/09/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 16 of 23

07/12/2012 07/13/2012

86 MOTION for Leave to Intervene filed by Christopher S. Bouslog appearing for Movants A. P., L. P., T. P. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chris Bouslog, # 2 Notice of Hearing and Certificate of Service) [Title of court is captioned as Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii] (afc) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
87 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 86 Movants A.P., L. P., T.P.'s MOTION to Intervene set for court hearing on 8/16/2012 at 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (lls, )

07/17/2012
07/18/2012 07/23/2012 08/03/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 07/13/2012)
88 STATEMENT of No Opposition re: 86 to Plaintiffs−Intervenors AP, LP and TP's Motion for Leave to Intervene filed on July 12, 2012, and Certificate of Service filed by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2. (Uesugi, Glenn) Docket text modified on 7/18/2012 to add document number link to correlate to the M/Intervene, doc no. (86). (afc). (Entered: 07/17/2012)
89 STATEMENT of No Opposition re 86 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ferm, Dennis) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
90 STATEMENT of No Opposition re 86 MOTION to Intervene Filed on July 12, 2012; Certificate of Service filed by Scott O'Neal. (Schmitt, Randall) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
91 ORDER REFERRING CASES BEFORE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. Case reassigned to JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT for all further proceedings. JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA no longer assigned to case.
Please reflect new case number CV 11−00550−JMS−KSC on all further
pleadings. Signed by JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA on 8/3/2012. (afc)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

08/08/2012

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 08/08/2012)
92 CLERK'S NOTICE OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REASSIGNMENT: With reference to the "Order Referring Cases before Senior District Judge David Alan Ezra" (docket entry no. 91 ) whereby the instant case was reassigned to Judge J. Michael Seabright, please be advised that the case will now be reassigned to JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR for all further proceedings. Accordingly, please
reflect new case number CV 11−00550−HG−KSC on all further pleadings.
(afc)

08/08/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 08/08/2012)
93 EO: Status Conference Re: Trial Date and Other Deadlines set for 8/16/2012 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )

08/16/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 08/08/2012)
94 EP: granting 86 Movants A.P., L. P., T. P.'s Motion for Leave to Intervene held on 8/16/2012. Status Conference Re: Trial Date and Other Deadlines held on 8/16/2012. Counsel Harvey Henderson present for the Status Conference. Movants A.P., L. P., T. P.'s Motion for Leave to Intervene 86 . There being no opposition, Motion granted. Mr. Bouslog to prepare the Order.Status Conference Re: Trial

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 17 of 23

08/16/2012
08/24/2012 08/28/2012 09/05/2012
09/10/2012 12/07/2012
12/18/2012
12/21/2012 02/01/2013

Date and Other Deadlines. New trial date given. Second Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Order to be issued. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 9/17/2013 before JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/6/2013 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/6/2013 08:30 AM before JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR. Settlement Conference set for 5/16/2013 10:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Discovery due by 7/19/2013. Motions due by 4/17/2013. ( FTR C5, 9:01−9:04am (Motion); C5 − no record, 9:04−9:09am (Status Conf).) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 08/16/2012)
95 SECOND AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 8/16/2012. (ecs, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on 8/20/2012 the date of this docket entry Modified text on 8/16/2012 (ecs, ). (Entered: 08/16/2012)
96 NOTICE of Appearance by Harvey E. Henderson, Jr on behalf of State of Hawaii on behalf of State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Henderson, Harvey) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
98 NOTICE of Attorney's Lien; Certificate of Service − filed by attorney John Rapp.
[Case number reflected as CV 11−00550−DAE−KSC. Correct case number: CV
11−00550−HG−KSC] (afc) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
99 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS−INTERVENORS AP, LP, AND TP'S 86 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED JULY 12, 2012. Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 9/4/2012. (ecs, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on 9/6/2012. (Entered: 09/05/2012)
100 John Rapp's Notice of WITHDRAWAL of 98 "Notice of Attorney's Lien" filed August 28, 2012; Certificate of Service. (ecs, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
101 EO: Settlement Conference set for 12/21/2012 01:30 PM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Confidential Settlement Conference statements due: 12/14/12. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 12/07/2012)
102 EO: The time for the Settlement Conference set for 1:30pm on 12/21/2012 shall be moved to 9:00 AM on 12/21/2012 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 12/18/2012)
103 EP: Settlement Conference held on 12/21/2012. Mediator Riki May Amano and Defendant Scott O'Neal present. Settlement Conference held. Counsel to prepare written settlement agreement. The Court will contact counsel to schedule a Status Conference regarding completion of settlement agreement. ( In Chambers − no record, 9:00−11:05am and 1:00−3:15pm.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 12/21/2012)
104 MOTION to Certify Class , Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement Eric A. Seitz appearing for Intervenor

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 18 of 23

02/01/2013 02/08/2013 02/11/2013 02/12/2013 02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/13/2013

Plaintiffs Jocelyn Collier, Elvira Dumbique, Nelson Dumbique, Maribel Oallesma, Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii, Third Party Defendants Roxsanne Tomita, Roxsanne Tomita (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Seitz, Eric) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
105 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear Motion re 104 MOTION to Certify Class , Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement Eric A. Seitz appearing for Intervenor Plaintiffs Jocelyn Collier, Elvira Dumbique, Nelson Dumbique, Maribel Oallesma, Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii, Third Party Defendants Roxsanne Tomita, Roxsanne Tomita (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eric A. Seitz, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Seitz, Eric) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
106 EO: Status Conference Re: Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 104 set for 2/11/2013 01:30 PM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 02/08/2013)
107 EP: Status Conference Re: Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 104 held on 2/11/2013. Mediator Riki Amano present. Counsel to execute the Magistrate Consent. Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 104 set 2/19/13 at 9:30am before Judge Chang. Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time 105 granted. Written Joinders due by noon on 2/14/13. ( C5 − no record, 1:30−1:45pm.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 02/11/2013)
109 MOTION for Joinder in Consolidated Plaintiffs' 104 Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement Filed 2/1/13 Christopher S. Bouslog appearing for Intervenor Plaintiff A. P. (Bouslog, Christopher) Modified to link to Motion on 2/13/2013 (ecs, ). (Entered: 02/12/2013)
110 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 109 : Plaintiffs−Intervenors AP, LP and TP's JOINDER in Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement set for 2/19/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 02/13/2013)
111 MOTION for Joinder in 104 Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement filed on February 1, 2013 MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFF JANE DOE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF JOHN DOE, A MINOR; ET AL'S JOINDER IN CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS' JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPROVE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND TO SET HEARING DATE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
FILED ON FEBRUARY 1, 2013 Glenn H. Uesugi appearing for Plaintiff Jane Doe (Uesugi, Glenn) Modified on 2/15/2013 to change docketing event from "motion to certify class" to "motion for joinder" (emt, ). (Entered: 02/13/2013)
ADVISORY ENTRY re incorrect signature convention in entry docket number 109 MOTION for Joinder in Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement Filed 2/1/13 filed by A. P. The ECF User's signature must be preceded by /s/ and typed in the space where the signature otherwise would appear − refer to LR 100.5.2. Motion for Joinder has been linked to underlying motion. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/13/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 19 of 23

02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/14/2013 02/14/2013

112 MOTION for Joinder re 104 MOTION to Certify Class , Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement Randall K. Schmitt appearing for Defendant Scott O'Neal, Third Party Plaintiffs Scott O'Neal, Scott O'Neal, Cross Claimant Scott O'Neal (Schmitt, Randall) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
113 NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Case reassigned to Magistrate JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Please reflect new case number CV 11−00550 KSC on all further pleadings. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
114 MOTION for Joinder re 104 MOTION to Certify Class , Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement John F. Molay appearing for Defendant State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John F. Molay, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
115 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion : Plaintiffs Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe, a Minor, et al.'s JOINDER in Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 111 ; Defendant Scott O'Neal's JOINDER in the Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 112 ; and Motion for JOINDER in Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 114 set for 2/19/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

02/14/2013

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 02/14/2013)
116 EO: Jury Selection/Trial set before Judge Gillmor on 9/17/13 shall be moved to JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG's calendar for 09:00 AM on 9/17/2013. Final Pretrial Conference set 9/6/13 before Judge Gillmor is hereby vacated. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

02/19/2013
02/19/2013 02/19/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 02/14/2013)
117 EP: taking under advisement 104 Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement; taking under advisement 109 Motion for Joinder; taking under advisement 111 Motion for Joinder; taking under advisement 112 Motion for Joinder; taking under advisement 114 Motion for Joinder; Motion Hearing held on 2/19/2013. Matter taken under advisement. Court to issue Order Granting Consolidated Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Certify Class, Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement and to Set Hearing Date for Approval of Settlement 104 . ( FTR C5 − 9:40−9:45am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 02/19/2013)
118 MOTION for Settlement Defendant Scott O'neal's Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Randall K. Schmitt appearing for Defendant Scott O'Neal, Third Party Plaintiffs Scott O'Neal, Scott O'Neal, Cross Claimant Scott O'Neal (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Randall K. Schmitt, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Schmitt, Randall) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
119 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 118 : Defendant Scott O'Neal's Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement set for 4/22/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 20 of 23

02/19/2013
02/20/2013 03/08/2013 03/20/2013 03/21/2013
03/21/2013 03/21/2013
03/22/2013 03/22/2013

served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 02/19/2013)
120 ORDER GRANTING CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS' JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPROVE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND TO SET HEARING DATE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT re 104 ; 109 ; 111 ; 112 ; 114 − Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S. C. CHANG on 2/19/13. ( Settlement Conference set for 4/22/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG.) . (emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 02/19/2013)
ADVISORY ENTRY. Please be advised that the case number affixed to docket number 118
MOTION for Settlement Defendant Scott O'neal's Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by Scott O'Neal bears the incorrect judge assignment. Pursuant to the 113 NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE filed on February 13, 2013, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Kevin S. C. Chang. Please reflect
the new case number CV 11−00550 KSC on all further filings. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
122 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; EXHIBIT "A" − Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 03/11/2013)
123 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs; memo in support; declaration; Ex A; Certificate of Service Christopher S. Bouslog appearing for Intervenor Plaintiff A. P. (Bouslog, Christopher) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
124 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 123 Plaintiff in Intervention A.P.'s Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs set for 4/22/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 03/21/2013)
125 STATEMENT of No Opposition re 123 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs; memo in support; declaration; Ex A; Certificate of Service filed by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 123 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs;
memo in support; declaration; Ex A; Certificate of Service filed by A. P. was filed incorrectly in this case. Please be advised that the attached supporting documents (i.e. memorandum, declaration and exhibit) should have been attached as separate ECF attachments and labeled accordingly. Section 2.6 of the Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures states "Each exhibit referenced in a pleading, motion, brief or other electronic filing shall be submitted as a separate ECF attachment to the main document, regardless of the size of the file containing the exhibit. The filer must label each exhibit clearly when attaching in ECF." The filing party is also advised that the case number should reflect CV 11−00550 KSC pursuant to the 113 NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE filed on
February 13, 2013. No further action necessary. (emt, ) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
126 STATEMENT of No Opposition re 123 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs; memo in support; declaration; Ex A; Certificate of Service to Plaintiff in Intervention A.P.'s Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs filed on March 20, 2013; Certificate of Service filed by Jane Doe. (Uesugi, Glenn) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
127 MOTION for Attorney Fees Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs; Memorandum in Support of Motion; Declaration of Michael Jay Green; Declaration of John Rapp; Declaration of Glenn H. Uesugi; Certificate of Service Glenn H. Uesugi appearing for Plaintiff Jane Doe (Uesugi, Glenn) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 21 of 23

03/22/2013

128 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 127 Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs set for 4/22/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )

03/22/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 03/22/2013)
129 EO: In order to protect the identities of and privacy of class members or those who wish to opt out, the Court directs that notices, objections, or other documents regarding potential class members or persons who elect to opt out from class inclusion be filed under seal. Such filings shall remain accessible to counsel of record. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

03/22/2013 03/22/2013

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry Modified on 3/25/2013 (emt, ). (Entered: 03/22/2013)
130 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs Eric A. Seitz appearing for Intervenor Plaintiffs Jocelyn Collier, Elvira Dumbique, Nelson Dumbique, Maribel Oallesma, Office of the Public Guardian, State of Hawaii, Third Party Defendants Roxsanne Tomita, Roxsanne Tomita (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eric A. Seitz, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Seitz, Eric) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
131 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 130 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs of Class Counsel Eric A. Seitz and Associates set for 4/22/2013 09:30 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (sna, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

03/25/2013 03/25/2013 03/25/2013 03/25/2013 03/25/2013
03/25/2013
03/25/2013 03/27/2013

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 03/22/2013)
132 REQUEST for Exclusion from Class Action. SEALED; pursuant to docket entry 129 (emt, ) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
133 REQUEST for Exclusion from Class Action SEALED; pursuant to docket entry 129 (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2013: # 1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 03/25/2013)
134 REQUEST for Exclusion from Class Action. SEALED; pursuant to docket entry 129 (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2013: # 1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 03/25/2013)
135 REQUEST for Exclusion from Class Action. SEALED; pursuant to docket entry 129 (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2013: # 1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 03/25/2013)
136 Plaintiffs' STATEMENT of No Opposition to 130 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs of Class Counsel Eric A. Seitz and Associates filed on March 22, 2013; and Certificate of Service − filed by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2. (emt, ) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
137 Plaintiffs' STATEMENT of No Opposition to 118 Defendant Scott O'Neal's Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed on February 19, 2013; and Certificate of Service − filed by Jane Doe, Richard Roe 1, Mrs. Richard Roe 2, Richard Roe 2. (emt, ) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
138 AFFIDAVIT re 120 Order − Written Order Following Oral Order on Motion, Set Hearings,,,, [Affidavit of Publication] by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
139 REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION FROM CLASS ACTION. SEALED; pursuant to docket entry 129 (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/28/2013: # 1 Mailing

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 22 of 23

04/12/2013 04/17/2013 04/22/2013
04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/23/2013 04/23/2013

Documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 03/28/2013)
140 EO: Counsel may review sealed submissions regarding "opt out" exclusion from the proposed class the week of 4/15/13 in chambers. Counsel to arrange with court staff a specific date and time during the week of April 15, 2013. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/12/2013)
141 Declaration of John F. Molay Confirming Notice by U.S. Mail to Potential Class Members. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
142 EP: Motion Hearing held on 4/22/2013 re 123 Plaintiff in Intervention A.P.'s Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs, 130 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs of Class Counsel Eric A. Seitz and Associates, 118 Defendant Scott O'Neal's Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, 127 Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Special Master Riki May Amano and sign language interpreter Jan Fried present. Defendant Scott O'Neal's Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 118 . There being no opposition, Petition granted. Mr. Kimura to prepare the Order. Hearing regarding final approval of settlement and motion for approval of attorneys' fees and costs. There being no objection, the Court approves the settlement and grants the motions for approval of attorneys' fees and costs. Court to prepare the Orders. The following dates are hereby vacated before Judge Chang: 5/16/13, 10:00am, Settlement Conference; 8/6/13, 9:00am, Final Pretrial Conference; 9/17/13, 9:00am, Jury Trial. ( FTR C5 − 9:41−9:59am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/22/2013)
143 DECLARATION OF INTERPRETER JAN FRIED. (emt, ) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
144 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS re 123 , 127 , 130 − − Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 4/22/13. (emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/22/2013)
145 EO: re 144 The Court clarifies that the $104,712.00 fee request referenced in page 2 of its Order Approving Settlement and Granting Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed 4/22/13, should be awarded to Christopher Bouslog. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/23/2013)
146 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 4/23/13 pursuant to 144 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. (emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were

Case: 1:11-cv-550 As of: 03/10/2014 07:34 AM HST 23 of 23

05/01/2013 05/06/2013

served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/23/2013)
147 REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION FROM CLASS ACTION SEALED pursuant to docket entry 129 . (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/2/2013: # 1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 05/02/2013)
148 STIPULATION TO AMEND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FILED ON APRIL 22, 2013; EXHIBIT "A"; ORDER re 144 − Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 5/6/13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were
served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 05/06/2013)