Looking over the case list of the Civil Beat Law Center last week, I was struck by how many interesting situations they are confronting, sometimes taking the lead, and other times coming to the support of independent plaintiffs.

Here are three cases I found surprising and of interest. The first is an action brought by the CB Law Center to unseal a series of documents in the federal prosecution of Katherine Kealoha, wife of the former Honolulu police chief and a high-ranking deputy prosecutor for the City and County of Honolulu. In the other two cases, the law center has sought to file Amicus Curiae memos supporting a plaintiff’s case for increased openness to proceedings and access to government records.

The quotes below are from the law center’s list of cases.

In re Motion to Unseal Court Records

The Law Center moved to unseal multiple documents filed under seal without apparent explanation in United States v. Katherine P. Kealoha, 17-CR-582 JMS RLP-1. The Law Center’s motion is filed under 18-MC-477 JMS-RLP. On December 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge Richard Puglisi denied the motion to unseal, stating that the documents were sealed to protect a medical matter and Defendant Katherine Kealoha’s right to a fair trial. The Law Center appealed the decision to District Judge J. Michael Seabright.

The court docket shows 11 sealed records where virtually nothing is known publicly about the nature of the records, the type of legal action involved, or the compelling reasons to completely seal the records from public view.

I recommend reading through the the law center’s “Appeal of Order Denying Motion to Unseal” to get a good sense of what’s involved.

Walden v. Hi`ilei Aloha LLC

Plaintiff Andrew Walden, Editor of Hawaii Free Press, filed an action to obtain copies of the check registers and income/expense statements of three limited liability companies controlled by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Law Center moved for leave to file an amicus curiae—friend of the court—brief regarding procedural and substantive issues raised by the case.

In this case, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs asserts that several businesses owned by and managed on behalf of OHA should not be considered government agencies subject to the the state’s public records law.

The law center’s proposed Amicus Curiae memo, attached to its Motion for Leave to File, spells out the legal ownership and control of each of the entities involved in the case.

And the plaintiff, Andrew Walden, provides access to all documents in the case on via his “Hawaii Free Press.” More very interesting information here as well.

And here’s another case that has been under the media’s radar.

In re Office of Information Practices Letter No. F16-01

An individual who disagreed with an opinion from the Office of Information Practices sued OIP asking for judicial review of the decision. OIP argued that only government agencies, not individuals, have the right to judicial review under the Sunshine Law. After the circuit court agreed with OIP and dismissed the case, the individual appealed and asked the Hawai`i Supreme Court to take the case on an application for transfer. The Law Center sought leave to file an amicus curiae–friend of the court–brief supporting that request. No. SCAP-16-0000568. After the Supreme Court denied the application for transfer, the Law Center sought and was granted leave to file an amicus curiae brief with the Intermediate Court of Appeals. No. CAAP-16-0000568.

This comes down to a basic point, at least in the CB Law Center’s telling of the tale. Does a private citizen have a right to challenge an OIP interpretation of law in court? OIP argues that the answer is “No.”

The Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning of nearly 30-years of OIP precedent should a clear example of why a route to appeal an adverse OIP opinion to court is a good idea.

Anyway,