I'm not a lawyer, but let's see how much law I've learned from reading The Fogbow. I don't have the rest of Orly's complaint, but based on the governing statute she cited I think I can probably take a stab at how the State of Hawaii will respond (in 6 months or so, after the inevitable service goat rope is resolved).
1. I think the case will probably be resolved relatively quickly, when and if the inevitable service goat rope is successfully resolved. (That may take a while, especially since Orly needs to provide notice to someone besides Fuddy.) The UIPA statute (§92F-15(f)) specifies that:
Quote:
Except as to cases the circuit court considers of greater importance, proceedings before the court, as authorized by this section, and appeals therefrom, take precedence on the docket over all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §3]
2. In their response, the Department of Health will rely on the plain text of §92F-13(4):
Quote:
Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure;
and on HRS §338-18, which is the statute that they cited in their response to Orly's subpoena attempt - the one that specifies that it is unlawful for them to disclose vital records to anybody who does not fall into one of 13 listed categories.
3. Although Orly will repeatedly claim otherwise, the Department of Health will not rely on §92F-13(1), which specifies that records that "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" are not subject to disclosure.
4. Depending on how batshit crazy the other 47 pages of Orly's filing are, the Department of Health may or may not need to point out that a subpoena is not a court order. They also may need to point out that while §92F-12(b)(5) does say that "Any provision to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall also disclose" government records subject to a subpoena, that only applies if the subpoena comes from either house of the HI legislature. They may also need to point out that this is not constitute a showing of "compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual", and that §92F-12(b)(3) does not apply.
Now, here's where how much I've picked up by paying attention is really going to be put to the test:
5. I'm going go way out on a limb and say that a Motion for Summary Judgement is going to be more appropriate than a Motion to Dismiss (at least if the procedural flaws in the filing get fixed). Hawaii's UIPA does specify that the agency has the burden to prove that nondisclosure is appropriate. That probably means that it's at least theoretically possible for Orly to state a claim. However, the Department of Health is clearly entitled to judgement as a matter of law. \
How'd I do?
Edit: OK, after looking up thread I went and looked at Justice v Fuddy. That case was disposed of with a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. So it looks like I was wrong on what constitutes "a claim" for the purposes of a MTD.
Login
Register
FAQ
