Opinion ID: 6335166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Frustration Exemption

Text: The analysis under the Frustration Exemption – which exempts records “that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function” - is straightforward. Both the trial court’s post-remand order and the State AG’s opening brief assert that the AG’s ability to provide legal services will be frustrated by the Report’s disclosure. This assertion is incompatible with our holding in Civil Beat I. See 146 Hawai‘i at 295, 463 P.3d at 952 (holding, on the same record before us now, that the AG “failed to prove that it was acting in a lawyer-client relationship with the legislature with regard to [the Report]”). The record contains no explanation of how the Report’s disclosure could possibly frustrate the State AG’s 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  ability to provide legal services given that, per Civil Beat I, the Attorney General wasn’t providing the State “legal services” when it investigated the Office of the Auditor or prepared the Report. 4 The State AG has not advanced any other arguments about why the Report’s release would frustrate a legitimate government function. The AG’s burden of showing how the Report’s release would frustrate a legitimate government function, see HRS § 92F15(c), has not been met. 5 The Frustration Exemption, then, cannot justify the Report’s nondisclosure.