Li v. Elefante

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: SCPW-24-0000638
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 11-APR-2025 08:54 AM Dkt. 19 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

QIN LI, Petitioner,

vs.

DAMIEN A. ELEFANTE, Chairperson, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations Appeals Board, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. AB 2022-015; DCD NO. 2-16-40740)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s “motion” to disqualify

Respondent from presiding over a workers’ compensation case,

filed October 1, 2024, and the record, we construe the motion as

a petition for writ of mandamus. Construed as such, a writ of

mandamus is unwarranted because this issue is more appropriately

addressed on appeal rather than through an extraordinary writ directed to a public official. See Barnett v. Broderick, 84

Hawaiʻi 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996); Salling v. Moon, 76

Hawaiʻi 273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994).

It is ordered that the petition is denied.

We note that dockets 2, 3, 10, 12, and 14 have been sealed

because they contain documents with birthdates, social security

numbers, the name of an attorney that was the subject of an

Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) complaint, as well as a

letter from ODC concerning the outcome of the ODC complaint

(docket 12). The attorney’s name and the letter are

confidential pursuant to Rule 2.22 of the Rules of the Supreme

Court of the State of Hawaiʻi. See In re Disciplinary Bd. of

Hawaiʻi Sup. Ct., 91 Hawaiʻi 363, 363 n.1, 984 P.2d 688, 688 n.1

(1999). Social security numbers and birthdates are confidential

personal information pursuant to Rules 2.19 and 9.1 of the

Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules.

The appellate clerk shall seal docket 1 because docket 1

consists of documents that were submitted to ODC and contain the

name of the same attorney. See RSCH Rule 2.22; Disciplinary

Bd., 91 Hawaiʻi at 363 n.1, 984 P.2d at 688 n.1.

The appellate clerk shall refile redacted versions of

dockets 1, 2, 3, 10, and 14 that redacts the name of the

2 attorney in the ODC complaint, social security numbers, and

birthdates.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 11, 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens