NO. 28396
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
BARBARA K. STANTON; JOSEPH C. STANTON, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RANDAL K. O. LEE, JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE
OF HAWAI`I, Respondent,
KENNETH M. CHO, CHAD D. TOMIYASU;
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; ROE "NON-PROFIT"
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and ROE
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10,
Respondents, Real Parties In Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO.
04-1-2186-11(RKOL))
ORDER
(By: Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and
Duffy, JJ. and Intermediate
Court of Appeals Judge Fujise, in place of Moon, C.J., recused)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioners Barbara Stanton and Joseph Stanton and the
papers in support, it appears that the extent of discovery was within
the discretion of the respondent judge, petitioners fail
to demonstrate that the respondent judge flagrantly and manifestly
abused his discretion in denying and limiting discovery,
and the denial and limitation of discovery is reviewable for abuse of
discretion, not harmless error, on appeal from a final
judgment (see Acoba v. General Tire, Inc.,
92 Hawai`i 1, 9, 986 P.2d 288, 296 (1999). Therefore, petitioners are
not
entitled to mandamus relief. See
Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai`i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner
demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a
lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or
obtain the requested action. Such writs are not
intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower
courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies
in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to
act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted
erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act.).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, February 15, 2007.
Arthur Y. Park,
Laurent J. Remillard, Jr.
and John C. McLaren
for petitioners