Motion to Stay Discovery in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Stay Discovery

“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.)

“To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession." (See id.)

“The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial." (See id.)

“The aim of these liberal discovery rules is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” (See id.)

“It is axiomatic that (d)iscovery by interrogatory requires candor in responding." (See id.)

As such, “the parties in a civil case are permitted to conduct discovery, to determine the essential facts of the case and the identities of possible witnesses, and to inspect relevant documents.” (See Meyers v. Meyers (2022) 517 P.3d 775, 782.)

However, a trial court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings.

Stay on Motion for New Trial or other Motion

“In its discretion and on such conditions for the security of the adverse party as are proper, the court may stay the execution of or any proceedings to enforce a judgment pending the disposition of a motion for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to Rule 59, or of a motion for relief from a judgment or order made pursuant to Rule 60, or of a motion for the making of or amendment to the findings or for additional findings made pursuant to Rule 52(b), or when justice so requires in other cases until such time as the court may fix.” (See Haw. Dis. Ct. R. Civ. P. 62.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Stay Discovery

“Under our caselaw, a trial court has inherent authority to determine the nature and extent of the security to be furnished in the exercise of a party's right to obtain a stay pending an appeal.” (See Kelepolo v. Fernandez (2020) 468 P.3d 196, 202.)

“The granting of such stay is discretionary with the court.” (See Solarana v. Indust. Electronics (1967) 50 Haw. 22, 30.)

“A court's discretion to stay proceedings for purposes of judicial economy is not without limitations.” (See Blake v. Cnty. of Kaua'I Planning Comm'n (2014) 315 P.3d 749, 764 n.13; Cf. Sapp v. Wong (1980) 62 Haw. 34, 41, 609 P.2d 137, 142 [noting that a wide variety of circumstances may arise which call for the exercise of judicial discretion in determining whether to grant or refuse a continuance[,] including whether a continuance would be prejudicial to the opposing party, or whether the denial of a continuance would prevent the moving party from having a reasonable opportunity to present its case on the merits].)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Stay Discovery

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.” (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.)