Last week, Judge Richard Paez, along with Judges Milan Smith and Lucy Koh, made a decision in the case of Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, Inc. v. Maile. They discussed the First Amendment’s protection of the press and public’s right of access to court proceedings and documents. They emphasized that this right does not apply to every judicial proceeding or court record, but where it does, the state must show a compelling governmental interest for denying access.
The case focused on Hawaii’s Court Records Rules, which mandated the sealing of all “medical and health records” without individual consideration of privacy interests. The court concluded that the categorical sealing of such records without case-by-case evaluation was not permissible under the First Amendment.
Defendants argued for the necessity of sealing all medical records to protect individual privacy rights, but the court disagreed, stating that a blanket sealing policy was not the least restrictive means to protect privacy.
The court further discussed the importance of case-by-case evaluation for sealing medical records to balance privacy interests with the public’s right to access information. They rejected the argument that individual sealing motions would burden the court system, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of openness granted by the First Amendment.
The court also highlighted the risks of remote electronic access to court filings and emphasized the need for careful consideration of sealing motions to protect both privacy and public access rights.
The lawsuit stemmed from a 2020 case where Civil Beat sought to unseal court-ordered competency evaluations of Ramoncito Abion, who was charged with assault. The court-appointed examiners found Abion mentally fit for trial, but suggested his actions were influenced by drug-induced psychosis.
When Abion attempted to introduce the examiner’s testimony to support an insanity defense, the trial court ruled that drug-induced mental illness was not a valid defense under state law. As a result, the examiner’s testimony was deemed irrelevant, and Abion was prohibited from calling the examiner as a witness. Subsequently, Abion was convicted of assault.
Civil Beat filed a motion to unseal the competency evaluations in the Hawai’i Supreme Court while Abion’s criminal appeal was ongoing. Abion opposed the motion, arguing that the evaluations should remain sealed to safeguard his privacy. The Hawai’i Supreme Court refused to unseal the medical reports that determined Abion’s fitness to stand trial, interpreting the sealed “medical and health records” under the Rules to include criminal responsibility and competency assessments. The court did not provide a rationale for denying the motion to unseal, simply citing the Records Rules.
In a subsequent ruling, the Hawai’i Supreme Court overturned Abion’s conviction, stating that the trial court’s exclusion of the examiner’s testimony on methamphetamine-induced psychosis prevented Abion from presenting a full defense.
Robert B. Black is the legal representative for the Civil Beat Law Center.
