Motion for Protective Order in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Protective Order

“In Hawai'i, discovery rules reflect a basic philosophy that a party to a civil action should be entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of another person prior to trial, unless the information is privileged." (See In re Narayan (2017) 400 P.3d 544, 554; Hac v. Univ. of Haw. (2003) 102 Hawai'i 92, 100, 73 P.3d 46, 54.)

“The provisions pertaining to discovery in the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted to put an end to the sporting theory of justice, by which the result depends on the fortuitous availability of evidence or the skill and strategy of counsel.” (See Dicenzo v. Izawa (1986) 68 Haw. 528, 534-35.)

“Adequate discovery is necessary to provide claimants a fair opportunity to present their claims." (See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991) 500 U.S. 20, 31, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26.)

“Our system of civil litigation cannot function if parties, in violation of court orders, suppress information called for upon discovery.” (See Matsuura v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. (2003) 102 Haw. 149, 165-66.)

"Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.” (See id.)

However, in some instances the court “may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense…including ... that the ... discovery not be had.” (See Haleakal v. Univ. of Hawai'I (2016) 382 P.3d 176, 185 n.20.)

“In determining whether good cause exists for issuance of a protective order the court must balance the requesting party's need for information against the injury that might result if uncontrolled disclosure is compelled." (See Brende v. Hara (2009) 113 Hawai'i 424, 431, 153 P.3d 1109, 1116 (2007); Doe v. Doe, 120 Haw. 149, 170.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Protective Order under Rule 26

“HRCP Rule 26(c) provides, in pertinent part, upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the circuit where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense....” (See Haleakal v. Univ. of Hawai'I (2016) 382 P.3d 176, 185 n.20.)

“A party has standing to move for a protective order with respect to discovery directed at a non-party on the basis of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that the moving party will bear.” (See Haw. R. Civ. P. 26.)

“If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.” (See id.)

“Once a court issues a protective order, it must order reasonable expenses to the movant unless the opposing party was substantially justified or the award of expenses was unjust.” (See Hall v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., No. CAAP-17-0000382, at *6 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2022).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Protective Order

“We review a trial court's granting of a protective order for an abuse of discretion.” (See Doe v. Doe (2009) 120 Haw. 149, 165.)

“Thus, the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion that results in substantial prejudice to a party.” (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2016) 366 P.3d 160, 167.)

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2014) 341 P.3d 1200, 1212; Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (2003) 102 Hawai‘i 465, 484, 78 P.3d 1, 20.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Protective Order

It is well settled that “prior to trial every party to a civil action is entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of any person, unless the information is privileged [or protected].” (See Dicenzo v. Izawa (1986) 68 Haw. 528, 535.)

It is also well settled that “a party's failure to obey a court order to provide discovery is expressly subject to sanctions enumerated in HRCP Rule 37(b). The available sanctions under this rule include requiring the disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure [.]” (See HRCP Rule 37(b)(2); Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin (1995) 79 Hawai‘i 527, 534, 904 P.2d 541, 548; Valentine v. Wong (2012) 284 P.3d 223.)