State v. Nilsawit., 139 Haw. 86

Hawaii News Now (HNN) applied for "extended coverage" to film a district-court criminal proceeding; the court initially granted coverage but later issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law restricting publication of undercover officers’ faces.
The State objected to publication of officer images based on ongoing undercover investigations; district court found good cause to prohibit showing faces of certain officers (must be blurred).
HNN filed a Renewed Application and then sought leave to appeal the district court’s order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA); the district court denied leave.
HNN appealed to the ICA; ICA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding media must use RSCH Rule 5.1(f)(8)’s five-day administrative-review procedure and cannot proceed under RSCH Rule 5.1(f)(9) because HNN is not a "party."
HNN petitioned for certiorari to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court arguing it was a party (so (f)(9) applied) and that HRS § 641-1 independently conferred ICA jurisdiction; the Supreme Court granted review of the jurisdictional question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HNN could seek interlocutory appeal under RSCH Rule 5.1(f)(9)	HNN: It was effectively a party and thus eligible to use (f)(9) to seek leave to appeal	State: HNN is media, not a named litigant; (f)(9) applies only to parties	Held: HNN is not a "party" under RSCH 5.1(c)(7); (f)(9) inapplicable to HNN
Whether media must use RSCH Rule 5.1(f)(8) administrative-review route	HNN: Not bound to (f)(8); could appeal under (f)(9) or HRS § 641-1	State: Media must use (f)(8) five-day motion for review to administrative judge; no further review if administrative judge rules	Held: Media’s exclusive non-writ route is RSCH 5.1(f)(8); (f)(8) does not authorize further appellate review by ICA for media
Whether HRS § 641-1 provides independent ICA jurisdiction	HNN: § 641-1 allows ICA review	State: § 641-1 does not authorize interlocutory appeals from district-court orders; matter is interlocutory and not a final civil judgment	Held: § 641-1 does not provide ICA jurisdiction here (order was interlocutory; statute limits or requires circuit-court context)
Available remedies for media to challenge coverage orders	HNN: sought appellate review	State: statutory and rule limits apply	Held: Media may seek administrative review under RSCH 5.1(f)(8) or pursue an original writ (mandamus/prohibition) to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court; no right to appeal to ICA in this posture

Lingle v. Haw. Gov’t Emps. Ass’n, 107 Hawai‘i 178, 111 P.3d 587 (standards of review; jurisdiction/questions of law)
Barcai v. Betwee, 98 Hawai‘i 470, 50 P.3d 946 (construction of court rules reviewed de novo)
Kahoʻohanohano v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 117 Hawai‘i 262, 178 P.3d 538 (interpretation begins with plain language)
Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai‘i 200, 982 P.2d 334 (mandamus appropriate when no immediate appeal available)
State v. Hamili, 87 Hawai‘i 102, 952 P.2d 390 (mandamus as remedy where no right to appeal)
Oahu Publ’ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawai‘i 482, 331 P.3d 460 (writs used to challenge sealing/closure orders)
State v. Ontiveros, 82 Hawai‘i 446, 923 P.2d 388 (no statutory authority for interlocutory criminal appeals from district courts)
State v. Valiani, 57 Haw. 133, 552 P.2d 75 (same principle regarding interlocutory criminal appeals)
Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 580 P.2d 49 (exercise of supervisory power where trial court closed hearing)