Hawaii must provide material
Judge: Plaintiffs entitled to wildfire-related documents, data
HONOLULU — A judge on Friday forced the Hawaii attorney general’s office to turn over to lawyers involved in the hundreds of lawsuits over last summer’s Maui wildfires all documents, interviews and data collected by the outside team hired to investigate the disaster.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs suing over the August fires filed a motion last month asking a judge to compel the state provide them with the material gathered by the Fire Safety Research Institute, which was hired by the state to investigate.
The state refused, saying disclosing the records would “jeopardize and hinder” the investigation. In court documents opposing the motion, the state called the request “premature, baseless and frivolous,” and asked a judge to order that attorneys fees be paid to the state for defending against the motion.
Soon after the deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century ripped through the historic town of Lahaina and killed 101 people, Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez announced hiring outside investigators. Last month Lopez and representatives from the Fire Safety Research Institute released a report on the first phase of the investigation. While the report showed a broad communications breakdown left authorities in the dark and residents without emergency alerts that the former head of the emergency management agency did not return until the day after the fire started, it did not draw conclusions about actions taken by officials.
During a Friday hearing on Maui, state Deputy Attorney General David Matsumiya told Judge Peter Cahill the state is concerned that releasing information could prompt the six people who haven’t been interviewed yet to change their stories.
“Do you really believe that’s going to be happening?” Cahill asked. “And so what if they change their stories? Aren’t they entitled to?”
Cahill seemed to indicate concerns with the investigation, including whether people interviewed were advised that they weren’t obligated to answer questions. The judge’s order is of “grave concern,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement after the hearing.
“The independent, objective fact-finding process and analysis is critical to determining what county and state agencies must do to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again,” the statement said. “Premature release of these materials may allow external factors to influence the analysis.”
The attorney general is reviewing options. Cahill told Matsumiya he understands the state’s concerns, but that not giving the information to the attorneys would delay litigation. The investigation is important, and it was a wise investment to hire an outside agency given the state lacks a fire marshal, he said, “but it’s also important that people have their day in court.”