Johnson v. Nacino

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001147 18-MAR-2015 12:01 PM SCPW-14-0001147 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I FATHER WALTER JOHNSON, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE EDWIN C. NACINO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent Judge, and JOHN ROE 2; SOCIETY OF THE PRIESTS OF SAINT SULPICE A/K/A THE ASSOCIATED SULPICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES, INC.; CATHOLIC FOREIGN MISSION SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC., AKA MARYKNOLL FATHERS AND BROTHERS; and ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE STATE OF HAWAII, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 12-1-1637-06) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Father Walter Johnson’s petition for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate relief, filed on October 1, 2014, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that, under the specific facts and circumstances of this matter and the terms of the protective order, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that disclosure of the requested documents pursuant to the protective order issued by the Discovery Master violates article I, section 6 of the Hawai'i Constitution. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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 he or she 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, March 18, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.