SCPW-21-0000511 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the 

First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________ 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

(CASE NO. 1CC051000863) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

 Upon consideration of petitioner Civil Beat Law Center 

for the Public Interest’s petition for writ of prohibition and 

writ of mandamus, the respondent judge’s answer to the petition, 

petitioner’s response, the respondent judge’s reply, the amicus 

brief, and the record, it appears that the requested 

extraordinary writ is not warranted at this juncture. See 

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 

58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy 

. . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-21-0000511

11-MAY-2022

09:24 AM

Dkt. 50 ODDP
2

beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction.”); Kema v. Gaddis, 91 

Hawai‘i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of 

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless 

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to 

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the 

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; such a writ is 

meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who has exceeded 

his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest 

abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly 

before the court under circumstances in which he or she has a 

legal duty to act). 

 Petitioner initially sought a writ of prohibition and 

writ of mandamus related to the inability to publicly access the 

case file in Case No. 1CC051000863. On April 11, 2022, the 

respondent judge entered an “Order Removing Security Designation 

for Civil No. 05-1-0863-05.” Redacted copies of documents filed 

in Civil No. 05-1-0863-05 are now accessible by the public, 

including petitioner. 

 Petitioner has subsequently modified its request for 

relief before this court, in part, to request that the 

respondent judge be prohibited from enforcing an order sealing 

the complaint1 and defendants’ names in Civil No. 05-1-0863-05, 

 1

 Petitioner also notes that the case docket indicates that the circuit 

court no longer has the underlying complaint based on an order that was 
3

and enforcing a gag order entered against petitioner. 

Petitioner specifically asserts that the respondent judge has 

failed to comply with the procedural and substantive standards 

for keeping the complaint sealed. The respondent judge does not 

dispute that the actions taken in 2005 did not conform with O‘ahu 

Publ’ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawai‘i 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014) and 

Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawai‘i 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018), but 

explains, in reply to petitioner’s response, the factors he 

considered and the discretionary balancing he undertook in 

giving paramount protection to the plaintiff’s constitutional 

right to privacy against a third party’s qualified right of 

access to court records in a civil case. The respondent judge 

also clarified that his order does not preclude petitioner from 

seeking access to court records or publishing any motions or 

related documents and orders as long as the publication does not 

disclose the name and identify of any of the parties in the 

instant case. These averments and rationale, however, are not 

provided in any written findings in the underlying case. 

 At this time, given the developments in this matter 

and petitioner’s recently modified request for relief, the more 

appropriate course of action is for petitioner to seek relief, 

 

issued in 2005, which ordered the complaint be expunged and returned to 

plaintiff’s counsel. This court notes that such an expungement and purging 

of a court document is not general practice.
4

as modified, in the underlying case, and for the respondent 

judge, after all parties are heard on the matter, to thereafter 

enter formal written findings consistent with constitutional 

standards and case law, specifically Ahn and Grube. 

 Accordingly, 

 It is ordered that the petition for writ of 

prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice 

consistent with this order. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 11, 2022. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Michael D. Wilson 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins