Grube v. Trader

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted Nick Grube’s petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus concerning sealed records from a criminal proceeding. The court held that the circuit court failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for the public to object to sealing, did not sufficiently articulate its reasons, and lacked a compelling justification to overcome the constitutional right of access. The court also held that Grube could represent himself in the unsealing proceedings and directed the circuit court to unseal the records subject to a limited opportunity for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A court may not seal criminal-court proceedings or records without providing the public reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to object or propose alternatives, and without articulating the reasons for closure in specific findings. The circuit court failed to satisfy these requirements.
2. To overcome the constitutional right of public access, a court must make specific findings that closure serves a compelling interest, disclosure presents a substantial probability of irreparable harm to that interest, and no less restrictive alternative would adequately protect it. The circuit court's generalized assertions about ongoing investigations, possible interference, and safety risks did not satisfy any of these requirements.
3. A member of the public asserting an individual constitutional right of access to judicial proceedings and records may represent himself, and the circuit court erred by requiring Grube to retain counsel.
4. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with the constitutional access requirements and unseal the records when ordinary appellate review would result in untimely relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court complied with the procedural requirements for sealing criminal-court records, including notice, an opportunity for interested members of the public to be heard, and specific findings.
2. Whether the circuit court satisfied the substantive requirements for overcoming the public's constitutional right of access by identifying a compelling interest, finding a substantial probability of irreparable harm, and considering less restrictive alternatives.
3. Whether Grube could represent himself in proceedings asserting his personal constitutional right of access to judicial records.
4. Whether writs of mandamus and prohibition were appropriate remedies.

Disposition

writ_granted