Written Findings Are Mandatory to Seal Civil Dockets and Complaints in Hawaiʻi; Mandamus Lies to Unseal Absent Rogan Findings

1. Introduction

In Civil Beat Law Center for Public Interest v. Kawashima (Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, Jan. 5, 2026), the Civil Beat Law Center (a non-party) sought extraordinary relief to unseal the docket and complaint in a civil tort case that had originally been filed as a publicly accessible, non-confidential action. Shortly after filing, the parties settled and submitted a “Stipulation to Seal all Filings and Notice of Dismissal”, which the circuit court approved, sealing the entire case file.

Years later, when the Law Center requested access, it was denied. The Law Center moved to unseal, invoking the public-access protections of the First Amendment and article I, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, and arguing that Hawaiʻi precedent requires specific procedures and findings before sealing court records. The circuit court denied the motion without written findings, while ordering a “redacted Complaint” be made available to the Law Center.

The key issue before the Supreme Court was not whether sealing can ever be justified, but whether a court may keep a civil docket and complaint sealed without entering written findings that satisfy Hawaiʻi’s constitutional standards.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi granted mandamus in part and ordered the circuit court to unseal the docket and the complaint filed at Docket 1. The Court held that total sealing of a previously public civil case file implicates the public’s constitutional right of access and that sealing is improper where the circuit court fails to enter written findings meeting the governing constitutional test.

The Court denied (1) the requested writ of prohibition barring any sealing and (2) mandamus relief compelling compliance with HRCP Rule 12(f), deeming those additional remedies unnecessary given its disposition. The order’s effectiveness was stayed until Wednesday, February 4, 2026.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 537 P.3d 1154 (2023)

The Court anchored its writ analysis in the extraordinary nature of mandamus/prohibition, quoting Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim for the rule that such relief requires a “clear and indisputable right” and “lack of other means” to adequately redress the wrong. This framing mattered because the Law Center proceeded as a non-party under a specialized access-review pathway and sought direct intervention in ongoing record control.

Oahu Publ'ns Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Hawaiʻi 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014)

The Law Center relied on Oahu Publ'ns Inc. as a foundational Hawaiʻi decision recognizing the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings and records. The Court cited it (including its note on open civil proceedings) to reinforce that civil litigation is not categorically exempt from openness norms, and that sealing must be justified rather than assumed.

Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawaiʻi 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018)

The Court invoked Grube to underscore that even when privacy interests are asserted, they do not automatically become “compelling,” and “simply preserving the comfort or official reputations of the parties” is insufficient. This is especially relevant where parties attempt to convert settlement confidentiality into court-file secrecy.

Roy v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 152 Hawaiʻi 225, 524 P.3d 1249 (App. 2023)

Roy supported two key propositions adopted here: (1) sealing a publicly filed civil case file implicates the public-access right under article I, section 4; and (2) even if an interest is asserted, the proponent must show there are “no less restrictive alternatives” to closure. The Supreme Court used Roy to situate this case within a developing line of Hawaiʻi access jurisprudence applying rigorous scrutiny to wholesale sealing.

State v. Rogan, 156 Hawaiʻi 233, 573 P.3d 616 (2025)

Rogan is the controlling standard the Court applied. The opinion extracts and applies both the procedural requirements and the substantive test. Procedurally: (1) objectors must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the reasons supporting sealing must be articulated in findings. Substantively, findings must establish:

• (1) sealing serves a compelling interest that overcomes public access;
• (2) there is a substantial probability that interest will be harmed absent sealing; and
• (3) there are no alternatives to sealing that would adequately protect the interest.

The Court treated the absence of written findings satisfying this framework as dispositive error requiring unsealing.

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) and Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2020)

Though the Court ultimately grounded the right of access in the Hawaiʻi Constitution, it cited these authorities to confirm the historical and doctrinal backdrop: civil trials (and by extension key civil filings) have been “presumptively open,” and timely access to civil filings serves the democratic function of the judiciary.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdiction and vehicle for review. The Court relied on Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules Rule 10.15 (eff. 2022), which expressly permits Supreme Court review of access decisions, and directed the petition through Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21. It also invoked supervisory authority under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 602-4.
2. Right implicated. “Total sealing” of a previously public civil case file implicates the public’s right of access under article I, section 4. The Court treated sealing of the docket and complaint as especially consequential because these are the primary instruments by which the public learns that a case exists and what it alleges.
3. Procedural failure: no written findings. The Court narrowed the dispute to the second procedural prong of Rogan: whether reasons supporting sealing were articulated in findings. It rejected the argument that oral remarks at a closed evidentiary hearing could substitute for written findings, holding that “the record confirms that no written findings were made” and that this omission alone meant the docket and complaint could not remain sealed.
4. Remedy: targeted unsealing, not an absolute bar on future sealing. The Court ordered unsealing of the docket and the complaint (Docket 1), but declined to prohibit all future sealing. Instead, it required that any renewed or further sealing order must comply with Rogan and related cases like Grube and Roy.

3.3 Impact

• Stipulated “seal the whole case” settlements are not self-executing. Parties cannot ensure secrecy of court records merely by settlement terms or stipulation; courts must independently apply constitutional standards and enter findings.
• Written findings become a practical precondition for sealing. This decision operationalizes Rogan in the civil-records context: without written findings satisfying the three-part test, sealing is reversible—here, via mandamus.
• Press and public access enforcement is strengthened. By using Rule 10.15 and mandamus to order unsealing, the Court signals that non-parties have a robust mechanism to challenge secrecy that erases even the docket.
• Scope: docket-and-complaint openness as baseline. Even if later filings or sensitive exhibits might warrant partial protection, the opinion emphasizes that total docket-and-complaint sealing is constitutionally suspect absent a compelling-interest showing and least-restrictive tailoring.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of mandamus / prohibition

Special (extraordinary) Supreme Court orders directed to a judge. Mandamus compels a required act; prohibition stops an improper act. They are granted only when the petitioner’s right is clear and normal remedies are inadequate.

“Compelling interest,” “substantial probability,” and “no alternatives”

A high constitutional bar. The court must identify (in findings) a very strong reason for secrecy, show that harm is likely if records are public, and explain why narrower options—like redaction or sealing only specific exhibits—won’t work.

Total sealing vs. redaction

Total sealing hides the entire case (even its existence on the docket). Redaction keeps the case public while masking genuinely sensitive details. Hawaiʻi precedent favors the least restrictive option.

Findings (written)

Formal, reviewable explanations entered into the record. This decision treats written findings as essential for transparency and appellate/supervisory review.

5. Conclusion

Civil Beat Law Center for Public Interest v. Kawashima solidifies a practical rule for Hawaiʻi courts: a civil docket and complaint in a previously public case cannot remain sealed without written findings satisfying the constitutional test articulated in State v. Rogan. The decision limits the ability of litigants to purchase secrecy through settlement stipulations, strengthens non-party enforcement of access rights via Rule 10.15, and reaffirms that privacy and reputational concerns—without more and without least-restrictive tailoring—do not justify erasing public court records.