This part shall not require disclosure of:

1. (1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
2. (2) Government records pertaining to the prosecution or defense of any judicial or quasi-judicial action to which the State or any county is or may be a party, to the extent that such records would not be discoverable;
3. (3) Government records that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function;
4. (4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure; and
5. (5) Inchoate and draft working papers of legislative committees including budget worksheets and unfiled committee reports; work product; records or transcripts of an investigating committee of the legislature which are closed by rules adopted pursuant to section 21-4 and the personal files of members of the legislature.

[L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §1]

Cross References

Auditor's working papers, see §23-9.5.

Case Notes

Because plaintiff did not claim that the police department's reliance on this section and §92F-22 was improper or unwarranted, the police department was entitled to withhold documents under the sections. 937 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (2013).

Development proposals were government records that, by their nature, must be kept confidential in order to avoid frustration of a legitimate government function within meaning of paragraph (3). 74 H. 365, 846 P.2d 882.

Where news organization requested disciplinary records of twelve Honolulu police department ("HPD") officers who were suspended for at least twenty days for various types of misconduct, only the HPD could invoke the legitimate government function exception. The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, as a third-party intervenor, could not make that argument on HPD's behalf. 138 H. 53, 376 P.3d 1 (2016).

Where news organization requested disciplinary records of twelve Honolulu police department ("HPD") officers who were suspended for at least twenty days for various types of misconduct, the circuit court erred in holding that police officers have a "non-existent privacy interest" in their disciplinary suspension records and ordering HPD to disclose the records. Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act, as amended by Act 242, Session Laws of Hawaii 1995, demonstrates that police officers have a significant privacy interest in their disciplinary suspension records, and disclosure of the records is appropriate only when the public interest in access to the records outweighs this privacy interest. 138 H. 53, 376 P.3d 1 (2016).