NO. 29943
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
ERIC AARON LIGHTER, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE
GLENN S. HARA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE THIRD
CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I; RONALD ALAN OBER;
LESLIE W.
BROWN; and JAMES RIETVELD, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIVIL NO.
03-1-0103)
ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and
Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Watanabe,
in place of Recktenwald, J., recused)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner Eric Aaron Lighter (petitioner) on July 20,
2009 and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner is seeking a
ruling from this court that petitioner's January 11,
2006 motion to compel discovery be ruled upon and granted. The record
indicates that the motion was granted on January
30, 2006 by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, the Honorable Gregg
Nakamura (Judge Nakamura) presiding, but the
granting of the motion was set aside on May 25, 2006. Petitioner asked
Judge Nakamura to "re-grant" the motion on July
22, 2006, but the request was by an unfiled letter, not by motion made
pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
7(b)(1). Judge Nakamura was not obliged to act on the July 22, 2006
letter request that was not filed in Civil No. 03-1-0103. Petitioner
did not properly request a ruling on the motion to compel discovery
until the filing of petitioner's June 23,
2009 request directed to the respondent judge, who replaced Judge
Nakamura as presiding judge in 2009. Defendant
Ronald Ober responded to the June 23, 2009 request on June 30, 2009 and
petitioner replied to the response on July 6,
2009. Two weeks later, on July 20, 2009, petitioner filed the instant
petition for a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent judge to rule on the June 23, 2009 request. The passage of
two weeks after the filing of the July 6, 2009 reply is
not an unreasonable period of time for ruling on the June 23, 2009
request and does not demonstrate that the respondent
judge is refusing to rule on the June 23, 2009 request. Therefore,
petitioner is 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.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, August 13, 2009.