Opinion ID: 871437
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Acceptability of an EIS

Text: In reviewing a challenge to an accepted EIS, this court “uses the ‘rule of reason’ to determine whether an EIS is legally sufficient in adequately disclosing facts to enable a decisionmaking body to render an informed decision.” Citizens for Prot. of North Kohala Coastline v. Cnty. of Hawai#i, 91 Hawai#i 94, 107, 979 P.2d 1120, 1133 (1999) (brackets and citation omitted). Under the “rule of reason,” an EIS need not be exhaustive to the point of discussing all possible details bearing on the proposed action but will be upheld as adequate if it has been compiled in good faith and sets forth sufficient information to enable the decision-maker to consider fully the environmental factors involved and to make a reasoned decision after balancing the risks of harm to the environment against the benefits to be derived from the proposed action, as well as to make a reasoned choice between alternatives. Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai#i 171, 182, 914 P.2d 1364, 1375 (1996) (citation omitted). Additionally, “courts are reluctant to ‘second guess’ the decision-making body regarding the sufficiency of an EIS.” Id. at 182 n.12, 914 P.2d at 1375 n.12. -29- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER E. Denial of a request for a HRCP Rule 56(f) continuance “A trial court’s decision to deny a request for a continuance pursuant to HRCP Rule 56(f) will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” Josue v. Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 87 Hawai#i 413, 416, 958 P.2d 535, 538 (1998). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court “clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992). F. Denial of a request for reconsideration The appellate court reviews a “trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration . . . under the abuse of discretion standard.” Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., Ltd., 100 Hawai#i 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai#i 505, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000)).