Oahu Publications, Inc. v. Takase.
139 Haw. 236
| Haw. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 7–8, 2016 the State filed applications for judicial determination of probable cause in State v. Ferguson that, as filed, included a minor victim’s full name/address and full social security numbers in exhibits.
- The State moved ex parte to seal the probable cause application to protect the minor’s and others’ personal information; the district judge granted the sealing order without a hearing.
- One week later the State filed a redacted version that removed the minor’s name/address and SSNs; Oahu Publications petitioned the Hawai‘i Supreme Court for writs (prohibition and mandamus) challenging the sealing procedure and seeking public access and notice/hearing protections.
- The Supreme Court took supplemental briefing on what procedures courts should follow when publicly filed documents inadvertently include personal information in violation of HCRR Rule 9.
- The Court concluded the clerk/court may temporarily seal and parties (or any person) may move to seal, but sealing must be narrowly tailored, accompanied promptly by a redacted filing, and followed by notice and an opportunity to object/hearings as soon as practicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oahu Publications’ petition challenging the sealing was moot | Petition not moot; exception applies (public interest; capable of repetition yet evading review) so review needed | State & Judge: filing of the redacted document mooted the petition | Court found the matter reviewable under the public‑interest/ capable‑of‑repetition exception and addressed the merits, but dismissed prohibition and denied mandamus as unnecessary given directives and subsequent redaction |
| What procedures must courts follow when a publicly filed document includes personal information in violation of HCRR Rule 9 | Courts must allow immediate protective action but must give notice and an opportunity to be heard as soon as practicable; require specific factual findings when sealing | Courts may immediately seal or accept ex parte motions and may permit redaction or filing of a redacted substitute first; hearing only if objected to | Court held: immediate sealing/redaction is permissible, but sealing orders should be narrowly tailored, require prompt filing of a redacted version, provide notice and state reasons, and permit motions/objecting hearings as soon as practicable |
| Who may seek relief to seal improperly disclosed personal information | Media and any person should be able to request sealing and to be notified | State/Judge emphasized party motions suffice; hearing only if objection | Court held any person with a lawful interest may request sealing; orders should notify public and allow motions to object |
| Interaction between HCRR Rule 9 and court clerks’ authority under HCRR Rule 3.3 | Rule 9 mandates protection of personal info; redaction must be by parties | Rule 3.3 allows clerks to replace or temporarily seal incorrect filings within time limits | Court held clerks/courts can temporarily seal or replace inadvertently filed documents (within constraints), but parties bear primary duty to avoid disclosure and to file redacted versions promptly |
Key Cases Cited
- Oahu Publ’ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawai‘i 482, 331 P.3d 460 (Haw. 2014) (addressed public access to courtroom proceedings and directives for narrowly tailored closures)
- Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 99 Hawai‘i 191, 53 P.3d 799 (Haw. 2002) (public‑interest and capable‑of‑repetition exception to mootness)
- Enos v. Pacific Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., 79 Hawai‘i 452, 903 P.2d 1273 (Haw. 1995) (recognizing inherent supervisory/administrative powers of courts)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (First Amendment right of public access requires narrow tailoring of closures)
- In re Estate of Campbell, 106 Hawai‘i 453, 106 P.3d 1096 (Haw. 2005) (reiterating Hawai‘i’s policy of openness in judicial proceedings)
- State v. Pacquing, 129 Hawai‘i 172, 297 P.3d 188 (Haw. 2013) (discussing harms from unauthorized possession/disclosure of confidential personal information)