Gilliam v. Elliot, 511 P.3d 820

William H. Gilliam, self‑represented, sued Daniel J. Elliott alleging defamation/false light, UDAP, breach of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and fraud; complaint filed March 22, 2019.
Gilliam alleged the causes of action accrued in April 2016 when he learned of the allegedly defamatory exhibits; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing claims were time‑barred.
The Circuit Court granted summary judgment on all claims; Gilliam appealed, arguing he was denied discovery under HRCP 56(f), that the court treated the MSJ as a Rule 12 motion, and that the court misapplied a two‑year statute of limitations to all claims.
On appeal the court noted Gilliam’s briefing violated HRAP Rule 28 but, applying a liberal approach to pro se litigants, addressed the merits where ascertainable; Gilliam did not supply transcripts to support some procedural assertions.
The appellate court held there was no record support for denial of discovery or for treating the MSJ as a Rule 12 motion, and found accrual occurred in April 2016 as undisputed; it affirmed summary judgment on claims governed by two‑year limits but vacated summary judgment as to UDAP and fraud because longer limitations periods applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of discovery under HRCP 56(f) before ruling on MSJ	Gilliam: court summarily denied his HRCP 56(f) request and prevented necessary discovery to oppose MSJ	Elliott: record does not show denial; MSJ properly considered under Rule 56	No record support for Gilliam’s claim; contention without merit (appellant bore burden to produce transcript)
MSJ treated as Rule 12(c) and improperly considered matters outside pleadings	Gilliam: court treated MSJ as Rule 12 and relied on extra‑pleading matters without converting or giving notice	Elliott: MSJ was brought under Rule 56 and exhibits were offered as evidence	No record evidence court treated MSJ as Rule 12; contention without merit
Whether defamation/false light, breach of good faith, tortious interference were time‑barred under two‑year statutes	Gilliam: challenges application of two‑year period to some claims	Elliott: these claims are governed by two‑year statutes (HRS §§ 657‑4, 657‑7) and accrued in April 2016	Court affirmed summary judgment on defamation/false light, breach of good faith, and tortious interference (two‑year limits)
Whether UDAP and fraud claims were time‑barred	Gilliam: argued all claims subject to two‑year bar	Elliott: argued claims time‑barred	Court held UDAP governed by four‑year limitations and fraud by six‑year limitations; summary judgment erroneously granted as to UDAP and fraud (vacated and remanded)

Marvin v. Pflueger, 280 P.3d 88 (recognizing liberal construction of pro se appellate briefs)
Erum v. Llego, 465 P.3d 815 (pro se litigants’ filings interpreted liberally to promote access to justice)
Nuuanu Valley Ass'n v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 194 P.3d 531 (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
Org. of Police Officers v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 494 P.3d 1225 (HRCP 56(f) may require denial or continuance to permit discovery)
Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 909 P.2d 553 (appellant must provide record/transcript to show trial‑court error)
Matter of the Estate of Camacho, 400 P.3d 605 (court will not presume error from a silent record)
Delapinia v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 458 P.3d 929 (limitations period determined by nature of claim alleged)
Nakamoto v. Kawauchi, 418 P.3d 600 (false‑light claims derivative of defamation may be dismissed if defamation barred)
Bauernfiend v. Aoao Kihei Beach Condos., 54 P.3d 452 (defamation governed by two‑year statute)
Christiansen v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, 967 P.2d 639 (two‑year limitations for insurance‑context bad‑faith claims)
Eastman v. McGowan, 946 P.2d 1317 (general six‑year limitations applies to fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation claims)