The Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Friday, allowing the newspaper to recover nearly $70,000 in attorney fees and costs in its successful lawsuit against the state over the release of names of judicial finalists.
Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled in 2011 that Gov. Neil Abercrombie had to disclose the names under the state open-records law and ordered payment of legal fees and costs.
The governor did not appeal Sakamoto’s ruling on the names but filed a notice in July 2012 that he would appeal the judge’s award of $69,627 in legal fees, calling the amount unreasonable.
The appeals court put that issue to rest in a disposition order released Friday.
"This decision is extremely gratifying for all of us, the (appeals court) having left intact the Circuit Court’s sound ruling and reasoning," said Diane Hastert, Star-Advertiser attorney. "There is now no question the state is required to pay the Star-Advertiser’s fees and costs incurred to protect the public’s right to know the identity of judicial candidates, and there is no justification for additional delay."
The appeals court was undecided on the minor question of whether the Star-Advertiser’s request for $564 in photocopying costs was reasonable and sent that issue back to the trial court for more information. Abercrombie claims that the cost should not be reimbursed because the request for payment wasn’t specific enough.
The state has 10 business days to request that the appeals court reconsider its decision. After that, the state has at least another 30 days to appeal the decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
"Nothing’s ever over until it’s over, but right now the door has closed and it would need to be reopened by either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court," said Robert Thomas, Hastert’s law partner, who also represented the Star-Advertiser.
Thomas said an appeal by the state is unlikely, and that he "would be very disappointed" if that happened.
"There’s nothing stopping (the governor) under the rules from seeking the Supreme Court’s discretionary review … but at that point I think he’s jeopardizing the taxpayers’ money even further," Thomas said. "It would be very difficult to get our Supreme Court, I think, interested in the issues because it was such a straightforward issue on the appeal."
Hastert said the standard to obtain a review by the Supreme Court is that the appeals court "gravely erred" in its decision.
The state Attorney General’s office said it could not comment on the decision because lead attorney Charleen Aina was out of town, and she was the only person who could comment.
Requests for comment sent to the governor’s office were deferred to the Attorney General’s office.
