*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-15-0000783 10-MAY-2017 08:06 AM
SCAP-15-0000783
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR HAWAII.USA and CHRISTOPHER DAMON HAIG as an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
vs.
KAY LORRAINE BATE; LINDA HAMILTON KRIEGER, RAYMUND LIONGSON, KIM COCO IWAMOTO, WALLACE FUKUNAGA, ARTEMIO BAXA, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, State of Hawai#i; WILLIAM D. HOSHIJO, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, State of Hawai#i; HAWAI#I CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CAAP-15-0000783; CIV. NO. 14-1-2014)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J, Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees Research
Institute for Hawaii.USA (RIHI) and Christopher Damon Haig, as an *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
individual (Haig) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal, and
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Kay Lorraine Bate (Bate),
Linda Hamilton Krieger, Raymund Liongson, Kim Coco Iwamoto,
Wallace Fukunaga, and Artemio Baxa, in their official capacities
as Commissioners of the Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC),
and William D. Hoshijo, in his official capacity as Executive
Director of the HCRC (collectively “Cross-Appellants”) cross-
appeal the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court):
(1) October 8, 2015 Order Granting Plaintiff-Appellant Research
Institute for Hawaii.USA’s Motion for Order Compelling (a)
Independent Medical Examination of Kay Lorraine Bate and (b)
Production of Dr. Robert Marvit’s Expert File (“IME Order”), and
(2) October 15, 2015 Case Management Order (“Case Management
Order”).
On August 26, 2014, following a nine-day contested case
hearing, the HCRC issued a final decision and order which found
that Appellants had illegally discriminated against Bate on the
basis of her religion and her gender, and awarded Bate both legal
and equitable relief. On September 24, 2014, Appellants filed,
in the circuit court, a petition for appeal and a demand for a
jury trial de novo on all of the claims upon which Cross-
Appellants sought relief, citing SCI Management Corp. v. Sims,
101 Hawai#i 438, 71 P.3d 389 (2003), in support of their
2 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
entitlement thereto.
On June 10, 2015, Appellants filed a pre-trial motion
for an order compelling Bate to undergo an independent medical
examination and to produce the expert file of Dr. Robert Marvit
(Dr. Marvit) (“Motion for IME”). At the HCRC contested case
hearing, Dr. Marvit testified about the emotional injuries Bate
had suffered as a result of Appellants’ discriminatory acts.
Appellants argued that the Motion for IME should be granted
because Bate had placed her emotional state in controversy by
stating she had suffered emotional and mental distress, Bate did
not disclose Dr. Marvit as an expert whom she intended to call
until shortly before the originally scheduled contested case
hearing date, and Bate did not comply with their request to
produce the medical records that supported her emotional distress
claims during discovery in preparation for the contested case
hearing.
Cross-Appellants responded on July 21, 2015, arguing
that the Motion for IME should not be granted because the circuit
court did not have the authority to permit additional discovery
because the jury trial was an administrative appeal under Hawai#i
Revised Statutes § 368-16, Appellants already had the opportunity
to conduct full discovery in the contested case proceedings, and
Cross-Appellants agreed to release Bate’s medical records on the
3 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
condition that Appellants acquiesced to a protective order
covering the private information therein. Appellants did not
reply to Cross-Appellants’ response.
The dispute concerning the Motion for IME revealed that
the parties fundamentally disagreed on the nature and scope of
the jury trial. After the parties briefed their positions on
these matters and submitted proposed case management orders, the
circuit court filed the IME Order on October 8, 2015, and the
Case Management Order on October 15, 2015.
In the IME Order, the circuit court acknowledged that
in the HCRC contested case proceedings, Bate belatedly identified
Dr. Marvit as an expert witness, and that Appellants may have
been prejudiced by their inability to obtain a rebuttal expert.
Accordingly, the circuit court granted Appellants’ Motion for
IME. However, the circuit court specifically stated that its
ruling was limited to Appellants’ singular discovery request.
In the Case Management Order, the circuit court ruled,
in pertinent part: (1) the jury trial was to be de novo as to all
claims for which legal relief was granted; (2) there would be no
further discovery; (3) the evidence to be presented at trial,
including witness testimony, was to be limited to the evidence
that was presented at the contested case proceeding, and; (4) the
parties were only entitled to limited discovery concerning Bate’s
4 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
emotional injuries, and the experts whom they sought to testify
thereon, in light of the unique problems that arose out of
discovery in the HCRC proceedings.
The parties jointly obtained leave from the circuit
court to file interlocutory appeals from the IME Order and the
Case Management Order. Appellants and Cross-Appellants filed
their appeal and cross-appeal, respectively, in the Intermediate
Court of Appeals. The case was thereafter transferred to this
court.
On appeal, Appellants argue that the circuit court
erred by: (1) finding that Appellants are entitled to a jury
trial only on the claims for which legal relief was granted; (2)
finding that the parties, in the jury trial, could only present
witnesses who had previously testified during the HCRC contested
case hearing, and that the testimony of such witnesses shall be
limited to the testimony that was given in the HCRC proceedings;
(3) finding that the parties may not conduct any further
discovery in preparation for the jury trial, and not allowing the
parties to introduce evidence beyond that which was contained in
the HCRC record; (4) finding that Haig remains a defendant in the
jury trial, and; (5) finding that Haig was not permitted to
introduce witness testimony and other evidence to rebut the HCRC
and Bate’s contentions as to Haig’s net worth at the time of the
5 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
jury trial on the issue of punitive damages. On cross-appeal,
Cross-Appellants contend that the circuit court erred in allowing
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-15-0000783 10-MAY-2017 08:06 AM
SCAP-15-0000783
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR HAWAII.USA and CHRISTOPHER DAMON HAIG as an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
vs.
KAY LORRAINE BATE; LINDA HAMILTON KRIEGER, RAYMUND LIONGSON, KIM COCO IWAMOTO, WALLACE FUKUNAGA, ARTEMIO BAXA, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, State of Hawai#i; WILLIAM D. HOSHIJO, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, State of Hawai#i; HAWAI#I CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CAAP-15-0000783; CIV. NO. 14-1-2014)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J, Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees Research
Institute for Hawaii.USA (RIHI) and Christopher Damon Haig, as an *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
individual (Haig) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal, and
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Kay Lorraine Bate (Bate),
Linda Hamilton Krieger, Raymund Liongson, Kim Coco Iwamoto,
Wallace Fukunaga, and Artemio Baxa, in their official capacities
as Commissioners of the Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC),
and William D. Hoshijo, in his official capacity as Executive
Director of the HCRC (collectively “Cross-Appellants”) cross-
appeal the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court):
(1) October 8, 2015 Order Granting Plaintiff-Appellant Research
Institute for Hawaii.USA’s Motion for Order Compelling (a)
Independent Medical Examination of Kay Lorraine Bate and (b)
Production of Dr. Robert Marvit’s Expert File (“IME Order”), and
(2) October 15, 2015 Case Management Order (“Case Management
Order”).
On August 26, 2014, following a nine-day contested case
hearing, the HCRC issued a final decision and order which found
that Appellants had illegally discriminated against Bate on the
basis of her religion and her gender, and awarded Bate both legal
and equitable relief. On September 24, 2014, Appellants filed,
in the circuit court, a petition for appeal and a demand for a
jury trial de novo on all of the claims upon which Cross-
Appellants sought relief, citing SCI Management Corp. v. Sims,
101 Hawai#i 438, 71 P.3d 389 (2003), in support of their
2 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
entitlement thereto.
On June 10, 2015, Appellants filed a pre-trial motion
for an order compelling Bate to undergo an independent medical
examination and to produce the expert file of Dr. Robert Marvit
(Dr. Marvit) (“Motion for IME”). At the HCRC contested case
hearing, Dr. Marvit testified about the emotional injuries Bate
had suffered as a result of Appellants’ discriminatory acts.
Appellants argued that the Motion for IME should be granted
because Bate had placed her emotional state in controversy by
stating she had suffered emotional and mental distress, Bate did
not disclose Dr. Marvit as an expert whom she intended to call
until shortly before the originally scheduled contested case
hearing date, and Bate did not comply with their request to
produce the medical records that supported her emotional distress
claims during discovery in preparation for the contested case
hearing.
Cross-Appellants responded on July 21, 2015, arguing
that the Motion for IME should not be granted because the circuit
court did not have the authority to permit additional discovery
because the jury trial was an administrative appeal under Hawai#i
Revised Statutes § 368-16, Appellants already had the opportunity
to conduct full discovery in the contested case proceedings, and
Cross-Appellants agreed to release Bate’s medical records on the
3 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
condition that Appellants acquiesced to a protective order
covering the private information therein. Appellants did not
reply to Cross-Appellants’ response.
The dispute concerning the Motion for IME revealed that
the parties fundamentally disagreed on the nature and scope of
the jury trial. After the parties briefed their positions on
these matters and submitted proposed case management orders, the
circuit court filed the IME Order on October 8, 2015, and the
Case Management Order on October 15, 2015.
In the IME Order, the circuit court acknowledged that
in the HCRC contested case proceedings, Bate belatedly identified
Dr. Marvit as an expert witness, and that Appellants may have
been prejudiced by their inability to obtain a rebuttal expert.
Accordingly, the circuit court granted Appellants’ Motion for
IME. However, the circuit court specifically stated that its
ruling was limited to Appellants’ singular discovery request.
In the Case Management Order, the circuit court ruled,
in pertinent part: (1) the jury trial was to be de novo as to all
claims for which legal relief was granted; (2) there would be no
further discovery; (3) the evidence to be presented at trial,
including witness testimony, was to be limited to the evidence
that was presented at the contested case proceeding, and; (4) the
parties were only entitled to limited discovery concerning Bate’s
4 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
emotional injuries, and the experts whom they sought to testify
thereon, in light of the unique problems that arose out of
discovery in the HCRC proceedings.
The parties jointly obtained leave from the circuit
court to file interlocutory appeals from the IME Order and the
Case Management Order. Appellants and Cross-Appellants filed
their appeal and cross-appeal, respectively, in the Intermediate
Court of Appeals. The case was thereafter transferred to this
court.
On appeal, Appellants argue that the circuit court
erred by: (1) finding that Appellants are entitled to a jury
trial only on the claims for which legal relief was granted; (2)
finding that the parties, in the jury trial, could only present
witnesses who had previously testified during the HCRC contested
case hearing, and that the testimony of such witnesses shall be
limited to the testimony that was given in the HCRC proceedings;
(3) finding that the parties may not conduct any further
discovery in preparation for the jury trial, and not allowing the
parties to introduce evidence beyond that which was contained in
the HCRC record; (4) finding that Haig remains a defendant in the
jury trial, and; (5) finding that Haig was not permitted to
introduce witness testimony and other evidence to rebut the HCRC
and Bate’s contentions as to Haig’s net worth at the time of the
5 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
jury trial on the issue of punitive damages. On cross-appeal,
Cross-Appellants contend that the circuit court erred in allowing
discovery beyond the administrative record from the contested
case proceedings.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we conclude that
the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in the IME Order
or the Case Management Order. Accordingly, we affirm both
Orders.
Additionally, Appellants’ fourth point of error
concerns an issue that exceeds the scope of the present
interlocutory appeal. The circuit court did not rule on whether
Haig should remain a defendant in the jury trial in either the
Case Management Order or the IME Order. Accordingly, because the
issue of Haig’s individual liability was not resolved in the
orders from which the parties filed their interlocutory appeals,
we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the issue at this
time. See Sec. Pac. Mortg. Corp. v. Miller, 71 Haw. 65, 71, 783
P.2d 855, 858 (1989); Riethbrock v. Lange, 128 Hawai#i 1, 17-18,
282 P.3d 543, 559-560 (2012). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s
October 8, 2015 Order Granting Plaintiff-Appellant Research
6 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Production of Dr. Robert Marvit’s Expert File, and October 15,
2015 Case Management Order are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 10, 2017.
Bruce D. Voss, Leinaala L. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Ley and William F. Sink for Plaintiffs-Appellants- /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Cross-Appellees /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Margery S. Bronster, Rex Y. Fujichaku, and /s/ Richard W. Pollack Derek S. Nakamura for Defendants-Appellees- /s/ Michael D. Wilson Cross-Appellants