Opinion ID: 2639532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion for Extension of Time to Certify Doe Defendants and Motion for Certification of Doe Defendants

Text: Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 17(d)(3) (2000) provides in relevant part: When the naming or identification [of an unknown defendant] is made by a plaintiff, it shall be made prior to the filing of the pretrial statement by that plaintiff, or within such additional time as the court may allow. The court shall freely grant reasonable extensions of the time in which to name or identify the party defendant to any party exercising due diligence in attempting to ascertain the party defendant's name or identity. (Emphases added.) As the use of the word may implies, the circuit court has discretion to grant extensions of time, and thus we review its orders in this regard for abuse of that discretion. See State v. Kahawai, 103 Hawai`i 462, 465, 83 P.3d 725, 728 (2004) (The term `may' [used] in describing the court's power . . . denotes discretion.). See also Wakuya v. Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd., 65 Haw. 592, 597, 656 P.2d 84, 88 (1982) (holding that the matter of extensions is addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court). As for the motion to certify itself, HRCP Rule 17(d)(4) states: When a party defendant has been named or identified in accordance with this rule, the court shall so certify and may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from undue burden and expense in any further proceedings involving the party defendant. (Emphasis added.) The use of the word shall indicates that the grant or denial of certification is mandatory. See Taomae v. Lingle, 108 Hawai`i 245, 251, 118 P.3d 1188, 1194 (2005) (The term `shall' is ordinarily used in a mandatory sense. (Citation omitted.)). Therefore, the grant or denial of a motion for certification is a question of law reviewed de novo.