Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 05-JAN-2026 10:34 AM Dkt. 48 ORD
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JAMES S. KAWASHIMA Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge;
and
M.K.; S. LAWRENCE SCHLESINGER, M.D., FACS; PHOENIX GROUP, LLC dba THE BREAST IMPLANT CENTER OF HAWAII and MOMMY MAKEOVER INSTITUTE OF HAWAII, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Tomasa, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Petitioner Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest
(Law Center) petitions for mandamus to unseal the docket and
complaint of a sealed civil case file. The case was originally
filed as a publicly accessible non-confidential civil case. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the parties settled, and
the circuit court approved a stipulation to seal the entire case
docket, including the complaint, from public access.
The Law Center filed a motion to unseal the docket and
complaint, which was denied by the circuit court without the
entry of any findings to explain the reasoning for the decision.
This original proceeding followed.
We grant the petition in part and mandamus the circuit
court to unseal the docket and complaint.
I.
On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff M.K. filed a complaint
against S. Lawrence Schlesinger, M.D., and a business entity
owned by him (Defendants) for various tort claims.
No return of service was filed by Plaintiff, nor was an
answer filed by Defendants.
On December 10, 2019, a Stipulation to Seal all Filings and
Notice of Dismissal, by and between Plaintiff and Defendants was
submitted to court. This stipulation directed the clerk to
close and seal the case file, including the complaint. Judge
Gary W.B. Chang approved and so ordered this stipulation thereby
sealing the case file.
In December 2023 an attorney for the Law Center requested
access to the case file at the courthouse, which was denied.
Thereafter, the Law Center filed a motion to unseal, arguing the
2 total sealing violated the right of public access protected by
the First Amendment of the Constitution and article I, section 4
of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. The Law Center further argued the
total sealing violated the procedural and substantive
requirements established in case law the circuit court was
required to follow before denying public access to the complaint
and docket of a civil case.
On May 28, 2024, Judge Chang held an evidentiary hearing
that was closed to the public; the Law Center did not
participate. Shortly after this hearing, Judge Chang retired.
On June 21, 2024, Judge James S. Kawashima entered the
Order Denying the Law Center’s Motion to Unseal. This denial
order provides:
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the Memorandum in Support of the Motion, and the Opposition to the Motion, the Declaration and Exhibit, and the filings in this case.
The Court ordered that:
1) The Complaint be amended to delete those words which the Court deemed scandalous pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure;
2) The Amended Complaint and the entire previously sealed pleadings remain sealed;
3) The redacted Complaint be made available to the Civil Beat Law Center.
The Court, having reviewed all documents submitted and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER’S MOTION TO UNSEAL IS DENIED.
On July 22, 2024, the Law Center initiated this original
proceeding, filing a petition seeking a writ of prohibition
3 prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing any order to seal
the case, and a writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to
comply with the constitutional standards set forth in Oahu
Publ’ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawaiʻi 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014) and
Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawaiʻi 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018), and the
standards for scandalous allegations under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(f) (eff. 2000).
The court entered an order to entertain the petition and
requested briefing from the parties. In opposition, Defendants
argue a case “never was at issue” because they settled before
they knew a civil complaint had been filed. Defendants further
argue that the settlement agreement afforded the parties privacy
by requiring the total sealing of the civil case, which are
“rare and compelling circumstances” to justify the total
sealing. Respondent Judge filed a notice that no response would
be filed.
II.
Rule 10.15 of the Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules (eff. 2022)
provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person or entity may seek
review of a denial or grant of access to a record by petitioning
the supreme court” under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 21, Writs of Mandamus or Prohibition Directed to a Judge
(eff. 2010).
4 A writ of mandamus or prohibition is an extraordinary
remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a
clear and indisputable right to the relief requested and a lack
of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or to
obtain the requested action. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023).
III.
This court has discretion under its supervisory
jurisdiction, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 602-4 (2016), and
Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules 10.15, to review the circuit court’s
decision to deny the Law Center, a non-party, access to the
docket and complaint.
IV.
The total sealing of a civil case file that is publicly
accessible implicates the public’s right of access to court
records under article I, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution.
See Roy v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 152 Hawaiʻi 225, 233, 524 P.3d
1249, 1257 (App. 2023); see also Oahu Publ’ns Inc., 133 Hawaiʻi
at 496 n.18, 331 P.3d at 474 n.18 (noting the public’s interest
in open civil proceedings). Cf. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980) (noting that
historically civil trials “have been presumptively open”);
Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir.
2020) (similar).
5 “To overcome the presumption of public access, procedural
and substantive requirements must be met.” State v. Rogan, 156
Hawaiʻi 233, 243, 573 P.3d 616, 626 (2025). “The procedural
requirements are (1) those objecting to sealing must be given a
reasonable opportunity to be heard; and (2) the reasons that
support sealing must be articulated in findings.” Id.
The issue in this original proceeding focuses on the second
prong. The Law Center argues the circuit court failed to follow
these procedural requirements because the sealing orders did not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 05-JAN-2026 10:34 AM Dkt. 48 ORD
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JAMES S. KAWASHIMA Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge;
and
M.K.; S. LAWRENCE SCHLESINGER, M.D., FACS; PHOENIX GROUP, LLC dba THE BREAST IMPLANT CENTER OF HAWAII and MOMMY MAKEOVER INSTITUTE OF HAWAII, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Tomasa, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Petitioner Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest
(Law Center) petitions for mandamus to unseal the docket and
complaint of a sealed civil case file. The case was originally
filed as a publicly accessible non-confidential civil case. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the parties settled, and
the circuit court approved a stipulation to seal the entire case
docket, including the complaint, from public access.
The Law Center filed a motion to unseal the docket and
complaint, which was denied by the circuit court without the
entry of any findings to explain the reasoning for the decision.
This original proceeding followed.
We grant the petition in part and mandamus the circuit
court to unseal the docket and complaint.
I.
On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff M.K. filed a complaint
against S. Lawrence Schlesinger, M.D., and a business entity
owned by him (Defendants) for various tort claims.
No return of service was filed by Plaintiff, nor was an
answer filed by Defendants.
On December 10, 2019, a Stipulation to Seal all Filings and
Notice of Dismissal, by and between Plaintiff and Defendants was
submitted to court. This stipulation directed the clerk to
close and seal the case file, including the complaint. Judge
Gary W.B. Chang approved and so ordered this stipulation thereby
sealing the case file.
In December 2023 an attorney for the Law Center requested
access to the case file at the courthouse, which was denied.
Thereafter, the Law Center filed a motion to unseal, arguing the
2 total sealing violated the right of public access protected by
the First Amendment of the Constitution and article I, section 4
of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. The Law Center further argued the
total sealing violated the procedural and substantive
requirements established in case law the circuit court was
required to follow before denying public access to the complaint
and docket of a civil case.
On May 28, 2024, Judge Chang held an evidentiary hearing
that was closed to the public; the Law Center did not
participate. Shortly after this hearing, Judge Chang retired.
On June 21, 2024, Judge James S. Kawashima entered the
Order Denying the Law Center’s Motion to Unseal. This denial
order provides:
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the Memorandum in Support of the Motion, and the Opposition to the Motion, the Declaration and Exhibit, and the filings in this case.
The Court ordered that:
1) The Complaint be amended to delete those words which the Court deemed scandalous pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure;
2) The Amended Complaint and the entire previously sealed pleadings remain sealed;
3) The redacted Complaint be made available to the Civil Beat Law Center.
The Court, having reviewed all documents submitted and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER’S MOTION TO UNSEAL IS DENIED.
On July 22, 2024, the Law Center initiated this original
proceeding, filing a petition seeking a writ of prohibition
3 prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing any order to seal
the case, and a writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to
comply with the constitutional standards set forth in Oahu
Publ’ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawaiʻi 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014) and
Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawaiʻi 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018), and the
standards for scandalous allegations under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(f) (eff. 2000).
The court entered an order to entertain the petition and
requested briefing from the parties. In opposition, Defendants
argue a case “never was at issue” because they settled before
they knew a civil complaint had been filed. Defendants further
argue that the settlement agreement afforded the parties privacy
by requiring the total sealing of the civil case, which are
“rare and compelling circumstances” to justify the total
sealing. Respondent Judge filed a notice that no response would
be filed.
II.
Rule 10.15 of the Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules (eff. 2022)
provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person or entity may seek
review of a denial or grant of access to a record by petitioning
the supreme court” under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 21, Writs of Mandamus or Prohibition Directed to a Judge
(eff. 2010).
4 A writ of mandamus or prohibition is an extraordinary
remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a
clear and indisputable right to the relief requested and a lack
of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or to
obtain the requested action. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023).
III.
This court has discretion under its supervisory
jurisdiction, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 602-4 (2016), and
Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules 10.15, to review the circuit court’s
decision to deny the Law Center, a non-party, access to the
docket and complaint.
IV.
The total sealing of a civil case file that is publicly
accessible implicates the public’s right of access to court
records under article I, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution.
See Roy v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 152 Hawaiʻi 225, 233, 524 P.3d
1249, 1257 (App. 2023); see also Oahu Publ’ns Inc., 133 Hawaiʻi
at 496 n.18, 331 P.3d at 474 n.18 (noting the public’s interest
in open civil proceedings). Cf. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980) (noting that
historically civil trials “have been presumptively open”);
Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir.
2020) (similar).
5 “To overcome the presumption of public access, procedural
and substantive requirements must be met.” State v. Rogan, 156
Hawaiʻi 233, 243, 573 P.3d 616, 626 (2025). “The procedural
requirements are (1) those objecting to sealing must be given a
reasonable opportunity to be heard; and (2) the reasons that
support sealing must be articulated in findings.” Id.
The issue in this original proceeding focuses on the second
prong. The Law Center argues the circuit court failed to follow
these procedural requirements because the sealing orders did not
include any of the written findings required by this Court’s
precedent recognizing the public’s right of access to court
records under article I, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution.
In opposition, Defendants argue that written findings were not
required, and that the oral findings made by the presiding judge
at the evidentiary hearing were sufficient.
We agree with the Law Center.
Here, the record confirms that no written findings were
made by the circuit court to justify the total sealing of the
case file, including the docket and complaint. Specifically, no
written findings were entered to establish “(1) the sealing
serves a compelling interest that overcomes the right of public
access to the records; (2) there is a substantial probability
that this interest would be harmed absent the closure or
sealing; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure or sealing
6 that would adequately protect the compelling interest.” Id. at
243, 573 P.3d at 626. Accordingly, we hold the circuit court
erred by sealing the docket and complaint.
V.
We grant the Law Center’s petition for a writ of mandamus
in part and order the circuit court to unseal the docket and
complaint filed at Docket 1, subject to the stay set forth
below.
Any further order to seal a record in the case must comply
with the constitutional standards set forth in Rogan, detailed
above. See also Grube, 142 Hawaiʻi at 425, 420 P.3d at 356
(“Although privacy rights may in some instances rise to the
level of compelling, simply preserving the comfort or official
reputations of the parties is not a sufficient justification.”);
Roy, 152 Hawaiʻi at 234-35, 524 P.3d at 1258-59 (affirming the
circuit court’s decisions to unseal a case file because “GEICO
has not demonstrated that there are no less restrictive
alternatives to closure that would adequately protect any
compelling interest”) (cleaned up).
We deny the Law Center’s petition for a writ of prohibition
insofar as it seeks an order prohibiting the circuit court from
enforcing any order to seal the docket and complaint, and for a
writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to comply with Rule
7 12(f) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure because we deem
this relief unnecessary based on our disposition.
The court will stay the effective date of this order to
Wednesday, February 4, 2026.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, January 5, 2026.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
/s/ Vladimir P. Devens
/s/ Taryn R. Tomasa