Opinion
Supreme Court Case No. CVA16-012
August 4, 2016, Decided
ORDER
This matter comes before the court upon the filing of a Verified Petition for Permission to Appeal ("Petition") with accompanying memorandum, Motion to File Under Seal, and Notice of Filing Under Seal, filed by Petitioner Christopher Allen on July 1, 2016. Also before the court are the Answer and Cross-Petition for Permission to Appeal, and Motion to File Answer and Cross-Petition for Permission to Appeal Under Seal, filed by Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Ian C. Richardson on July 14, 2016. The Petition and Cross-Petition are made pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure ("GRAP"). According to Rule 4.2(a)(1), the Petition must justify this court's grant of discretionary interlocutory appeal under the standard set forth in 7 GCA § 3108(b). After examining the relevant factors in section 3108(b), we have determined that the Petition and Cross-Petition should be GRANTED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the instant case, Allen brought suit against Dr. Richardson and Defendant John Young for assault and battery resulting from an incident at Guam Memorial Hospital (GMH), where Allen, a licensed process server, was directed to serve a subpoena on Young for an unrelated matter. See Pet. At ¶ 2 (July 1, 2016). Allen was later indicted on charges of aggravated assault, assault, reckless conduct, and impersonation of a public officer stemming from that incident. Allen went to trial and was acquitted on all charges. The trial court expunged all official court records, Department of Law records, and Guam Police Department records in relation to Allen's criminal case. Id. at ¶ 5.
The underlying civil suit is based on the same incident at GMH that served as the basis for the criminal case in which Allen was acquitted. In pretrial discovery and motions, Allen made reference to his expunged records. Defendants Dr. Richardson and Young opposed the use of the records, arguing that it would be a violation of 9 GCA § 70.44 to publicly disclose expunged records. The trial court issued a decision and order on May 10, 2016, under seal, which, among other things, excluded the use of Allen's expunged records in the civil trial. It is this decision and order for which both parties now seek interlocutory review.
The issues presented are: (1) Whether a person whom the court found to have waived the protection of the expungement by his use of his unsealed records in a civil action should be limited in his use of the records at trial; (2) whether the defendants who procured an order for access and use of the plaintiff's expunged records have standing to seek exclusion of those records at trial; (3) whether a person who publicly reveals information respecting unsealed, expunged records may be criminally prosecuted; (4) whether 8 G.C.A § 11.10 applies to people and entities other than the court, the Attorney General's Office, and the Guam Police Department; (5) whether people and entities who obtain or possess information that is later sealed are subject to criminal liability for disclosing or utilizing the information; and (6) whether the court may seal a public trial because of the possibility that expunged material may be revealed.
II. DISCUSSION
This court may, in its discretion, hear an appeal of such an order if it satisfies one of the criteria set forth in 7 GCA § 3108(b):
§ 3108. Appealable judgments and Orders.
....
(b) Interlocutory review. Orders other than final judgments shall be available to immediate appellate review as provided by law and in other cases only at the discretion of the Supreme Court where it determines that resolution of the questions of law on which the order is based will:
(1) Materially advance the termination of the litigation or clarify further proceedings therein;
(2) Protect a party from substantial and irreparable injury; or
(3) Clarify issues of general importance in the administration of justice.
7 GCA § 3108(b). An interlocutory appeal must satisfy at least one of these conditions, which exist to "ensure that such appeals are granted only when the necessity of immediate review outweighs the general policy against piecemeal disposal of litigation." Shin v. Fujita Kanko Guam, Inc., 2007 Guam 18 ¶ 7 (quoting People v. Angoco, 2006 Guam 18 ¶ 14) (alteration omitted). A threshold question is whether the issue on appeal will be a question of law. See 7 GCA § 3108(b) (referring to "resolution of the questions of law"). In this case, the issues presented for appeal are purely one of law.
Allen asserts that the grant of interlocutory review would clarify issues of general importance in the administration of justice, materially advance the termination of litigation or clarify proceedings, and would prevent wasted litigation based on a misapprehension of the law,. Dr. Richardson, in his cross-petition, asserts that resolution of the issues presented would clarify matters of general importance in the administration of justice, warranting interlocutory review, citing this court's previous grant of interlocutory review when issues of expungement are concerned. See People v. Lau, 2007 Guam 4 ¶ 3; People v. Ho, 2009 Guam 18 ¶¶ 5-6.
III. CONCLUSION
The court finds that interlocutory appeal in this matter would involve purely a question of law, and would satisfy at least one of the criteria of 7 GCA § 3108(b). The Petition is therefore GRANTED. The parties are reminded that, pursuant to GRAP 4.2, the date of this order shall be treated as the date of the filing of the notice of appeal, triggering all applicable GRAP deadlines. GRAP 4.2(d). This matter, and all filings made herein, shall remain SEALED until further order of this court.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2016.
/s/ F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
Associate Justice
/s/ KATHERINE A. MARAMAN
Associate Justice
/s/ ROBERT J. TORRES
Chief Justice