 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
KITV-4 v. Hirai9/13/2001
ng that Petitioners did not qualify for either mandatory or permissive intervention. See Exhibit A to Petitioners' Appendix at 2-3.
Third-party intervention by Petitioners may not be central to the issue here. See Gannett, 59 Haw. at 235, 580 P.2d at 57-58. Rather, it is the general public's right of access that is raised by the petition, founded upon our judicial policy of the open and public administration of justice. See id. at 230, 580 P.2d at 55. In adhering to the strict rules of intervention in denying Petitioners access, the court may not have considered that policy, inasmuch as it is not embodied in the rules the court considered.
Accordingly, the court's order, insofar as it affected the public's access to court records, may be too broad. See Sapienza v. Hayashi, 57 Haw. 289, 294, 554 P.2d 1131, 1135 (1976) (finding that allowing a trial court's impermissibly overbroad order to be appealed "would work upon the public irreparable harm"); Gannett, 59 Haw. at 236, 580 P.2d at 58 (finding that "there was an insufficient basis for [the court's] closure order"). Because of the paramount importance of maintaining open access to our courts and the evident failure of the court to determine the effect of such a policy in its order, "the facts and circumstances of this case warrant the exercise of this court's supervisory jurisdiction over the lower court . . . ." Id. at 227, 580 P.2d at 53.
While questions of closure have arisen most often in criminal cases, see, e.g., Gannett, supra; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), the considerations favoring public access in those settings pertain as well to civil proceedings. See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 386-87 n.15 (1979) (noting that "many of the advantages of public criminal trials are equally applicable in the civil trial context"); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983) (stating that " he policy considerations discussed in Richmond Newspapers apply to civil as well as criminal cases" and that " ivil cases frequently involve issues crucial to the public -- for example, discrimination, voting rights, antitrust issues, government regulation, bankruptcy , etc."). The fact that this case arises in probate court does not, in and of itself, exempt it from the general open policy attending judicial cases.
o statute exempts probate files from the status of public records, and . . . when individuals employ the public powers of state courts to accomplish private ends, such as the establishment and supervision of long-term testamentary trusts, they do so in full knowledge of the possibly disadvantageous circumstance that the documents and records filed in the trust will be open to public inspection. In re Hearst, 136 Cal. Rptr. at 824.
Jurisdiction, as described by the statutes, would permit us to remand this case to the court to determine whether particular factors in the case overcome the presumption favoring public access and to fashion an order appropriate to the facts and circumstances, if it were warranted.
In my view, we should reconsider the denial of the petition and order Respondents to answer the petition. We must act promptly in this matter, for as Justice Menor, writing for the court in Gannett explained, " ublic trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial process . . . is a vital ingredient of the administration of justice under our system of jurisprudence." 59 Haw. at 230, 580 P.2d at 55.
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|