Skip to content
Skip over table of contents to continue reading article

Hawaii

Reporter's Privilege Compendium


Author

John P. Duchemin
Cades Schutte LLP
1000 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Tel.: (808) 521-9315
Fax: (808) 521-9210

Compare

I. Introduction: History & Background

It is uncertain whether Hawai'i recognizes the privilege of a journalist not to disclose his or her source(s) of information.  In 2008, Hawai’i enacted a shield statute that included a sunset provision that would repeal the statute on June 30, 2011, unless the legislature reauthorized its extension before that time.  In 2011, the legislature extended the life of the statute for two additional years, but in June 2013, the statute was allowed to lapse and therefore was automatically repealed.  A subsequent legislative effort in 2015 to re-enact a similar shield statute failed, leaving Hawai’i without a shield statute.

In the only reported appellate case on the issue, the Hawai'i Supreme Court declined to recognize a First Amendment or evidentiary privilege under the facts of that case. In re Goodfader, 45 Haw. 317, 367 P.2d 472 (1961). However, the Goodfader case was decided prior to Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). Subsequent to Branzburg, a Hawai'i trial court applied the privilege to bar discovery of unpublished photographs taken by a newspaper photographer. Belanger v. City and County of Honolulu, Civil No. 93-4047-10 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct. May 4, 1994).

Compare

II. Authority for and source of the right

Compare

A. Shield law statute

Hawai'i currently has no shield statute. Although Hawai‘i previously had enacted a shield statute in 2008, Act 210, HB2557 (Jul. 2, 2008), the law had a sunset provision that would repeal the statute on June 30, 2011 unless the legislature reauthorized its extension before that time, id. In 2011, the legislature extended the life of the shield statute for two additional years, but in June 2013, the statute was allowed to lapse and therefore was automatically repealed. A subsequent legislative effort in 2015 to re-enact a similar shield statute failed, leaving Hawai‘i without a shield statute.

Compare

B. State constitutional provision

The Hawai'i State Constitution does not contain a shield provision. Moreover, no state court has construed the state constitution to confer the type of protection provided by a shield statute. However, Article I, Section 4 of the Hawai'i State Constitution parallels the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. Article I, section 4 provides:

No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Haw. Const. art. I, § 4. No state court has construed article I, section 4 to create a privilege from testifying in a judicial proceeding.

Compare

C. Federal constitutional provision

In In re Goodfader, 45 Haw. 317, 367 P.2d 472 (1961), the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that a newspaper reporter did not have a right under the First Amendment to refuse to answer questions during a deposition regarding a confidential source of information. Although the court assumed that forced disclosure of a reporter's confidential source of information may constitute an impairment of the freedom of the press and impede the newsgathering process, the court turned to the discovery rules under the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure ("HRCP") to determine whether journalists held an evidentiary privilege to refuse to disclose their confidential sources. The court declined to recognize such a privilege. Applying the Second Circuit's analysis in Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1958), the court held that disclosure of the reporter's sources was of enough importance to the plaintiff's case as to warrant disregarding or overriding the reporter's claim of privilege.

The applicability of Goodfader today is questionable. Goodfader was decided before Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), which has been recognized to establish a qualified reporter's privilege under the First Amendment. In an unreported decision, a state trial court questioned the applicability of Goodfader in light of federal decisions after Goodfader recognizing the reporter's privilege. Belanger v. City and County of Honolulu, Civil No. 93-4047-10 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct. May 4, 1994). In Belanger, the court held that a qualified reporter's privilege barred the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit from obtaining discovery of unpublished photographs of an accident scene taken by a newspaper photographer. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the photographs were necessary or critical to her claim and or that the information was unavailable from other sources.

On the other hand, in Jenkins v. Liberty Newspapers Ltd., 89 Haw. 254, 262, 971 P.2d 1089, 1097 (1999), decided after Belanger, the Hawai'i Supreme Court quoted a passage from Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), which in turn cited Branzburg for the proposition that the First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, even though the reporter might be required to reveal a confidential source. Whether this indirect reference to Branzburg is authoritative, however, is questionable, especially given that the reporters' privilege was not asserted in Jenkins. Jenkins was a defamation action against a newspaper for publishing information contained in a petition for seizure of an insurance agency.

The federal district court in Hawai'i has recognized a limited First Amendment privilege for reporters not to disclose their sources. DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., 507 F. Supp. 880 (D. Haw. 1981). Whether the privilege applies depends on three factors: "(1) is the information relevant, (2) can the information be obtained by alternative means, and (3) is there a compelling interest in the information?" Id. at 886 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1980)). DeRoburt was a libel action filed by a public official against a newspaper. The court held that although reporters had a conditional privilege not to disclose their sources, the enumerated factors favored requiring disclosure in this case. Refusal to comply with an order to disclose would lead to a presumption that the reporter had no source. The presumption may be removed by the reporter's disclosure of the sources at a reasonable time before trial.

Compare

D. Other sources

None.

Compare

III. Scope of protection

Compare

A. Generally

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

B. Absolute or qualified privilege

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

C. Type of case

Compare

1. Civil

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

2. Criminal

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

3. Grand jury

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

D. Information and/or identity of source

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

E. Confidential and/or nonconfidential information

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

F. Published and/or non-published material

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

G. Reporter's personal observations

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

H. Media as a party

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

I. Defamation actions

In DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., 507 F. Supp. 880 (D. Haw. 1981), a libel action brought by a public official against a newspaper, the court held that a reporter's refusal to disclose the identities of his sources for the news stories that were the subject of the lawsuit would lead to a presumption that the defendant had no source. This is a particularly damaging presumption because one of the elements of liability in a defamation action filed by a public official or figure is "actual malice," which could be established by proof that the reporter had no reliable sources. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Carey v. Hume, 492 F.2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Compare

IV. Who is covered

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

A. Statutory and case law definitions

Compare

1. Traditional news gatherers

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

a. Reporter

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

b. Editor

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

c. News

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

d. Photo journalist

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

e. News organization/medium

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

2. Others, including non-traditional news gatherers

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

B. Whose privilege is it?

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

V. Procedures for issuing and contesting subpoenas

Compare

A. What subpoena server must do

Under the state rules of civil procedure, subpoenas may be served at any place within the State.  The subpoena may be served by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, or anyone not a party who is over the age of 18.  Service is made by delivering a copy of the subpoena with the fees for one day's attendance and mileage allowed by law.

Compare

1. Service of subpoena, time

HRCP 45 and HRPP 17 do not specify when a subpoena must be served; however, summonses in a civil case shall not be personally delivered between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on premises not open to the general public unless a judge permits, in writing on the summons, personal delivery during those hours.

Compare

2. Deposit of security

HRCP 45 does not require that the subpoenaing party deposit any security in order to procure the testimony or materials of a reporter. HRPP 17 requires the subpoenaing party to tender to the person named in the subpoena the fee of 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law, except that no such tender is necessary when the subpoena is issued on behalf of the prosecution or a defendant who is unable to pay for the fee.

Compare

3. Filing of affidavit

Hawai'i law does not specify whether the subpoenaing party must make a sworn statement to procure the reporter's testimony or materials.

Compare

4. Judicial approval

The subpoena does not need to be approved by a judge or magistrate before a party may serve it. The subpoena is issued by the clerk of the court.

Compare

5. Service of police or other administrative subpoenas

There are no special rules regarding the use and service of subpoenas issued by the police or other administrative agencies.

Compare

B. How to Quash

Compare

1. Contact other party first

Hawai'i law does not require that the subpoenaing party be contacted prior to moving to quash, however, in practice many judges strongly encourage (and some require) that the parties first attempt to amicably resolve disputes involving subpoenas before seeking the court's assistance.

Compare

2. Filing an objection or a notice of intent

A notice of intent or an objection need not be filed before a motion to quash is filed, however, under HRCP 45(d)(1), the party served with a subpoena may, within 10 days of service, make written objection to inspection or copying of any documents.

Compare

3. File a motion to quash

Compare

a. Which court?

The motion to quash should be filed in the circuit court that issued the subpoena.

Compare

b. Motion to compel

For the sake of expedience, a motion to quash should be filed without waiting for the subpoenaing party to file a motion to compel. If written objections are to be made to a request for inspection or copying of documents, those should be made within 10 days of service, or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if the time specified is less than 10 days.

Compare

c. Timing

HRCP 45 and HRPP 17 provide that a court may quash or modify a subpoena "upon motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith." Thus, a motion to quash may be filed immediately after receipt of the subpoena, or at any time up until the time that compliance with the subpoena is specified. What makes a motion to quash "prompt" depends on the circumstances, but it is generally recommended that the motion to quash be filed as soon as a decision is made to oppose the subpoena.

Compare

d. Language

There are no recommendations for boilerplate language.

Compare

e. Additional material

No other materials need to be attached to motions and memoranda to quash. In practice, a motion to quash is generally accompanied by a memorandum or brief in support of the motion, and an affidavit or declaration of the objecting party or his/her attorney explaining the factual reasons for quashing the subpoena.

Compare

4. In camera review

Compare

a. Necessity

The decision whether to conduct an in camera review of materials or information requested for production in a subpoena is within the discretion of the court.

Compare

There is no Hawai'i law regarding whether consent to in camera review results in an automatic stay pending appeal in the event of an adverse ruling.

Compare

c. Consequences of refusing

There is no Hawai'i law regarding the consequences of a reporter's or publisher's refusal to consent to an in camera review.

Compare

5. Briefing schedule

Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Hawai'i Rules of the Circuit Courts, opposition memoranda are due not less than 8 days before the date set for hearing on the motion, and reply memoranda are due not less than 3 days before the date set for hearing, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4 of the United States District Court For the District of Hawai‘i, opposition memoranda are due not less than 18 days before the date set for hearing on the motion, and reply memoranda are due not less than 7 days before the date set for hearing, If the motion is a non-hearing motion, then opposition memoranda are due not less than 11 days after service of the motion, and reply memoranda are due not less than 11 days after service of the opposition memoranda.

Local Rule 37.1 provides a procedure for expedited resolution of discovery disputes before the Magistrate Judges in federal district court. The process entails abbreviated simultaneous briefing, and, if appropriate, a conference before the Magistrate Judge. Counsel desiring to avail themselves of this procedure must contact opposing counsel in an effort to reach agreement on the deadline for the submission of letter briefs, and then inform the courtroom deputy or chambers staff of the Magistrate Judge of the agreed upon deadline. Letter briefs are to be no longer than 5 pages, including exhibits. After reviewing the letter briefs, the Magistrate Judge will determine whether this expedited procedure will entail just the letter briefs, or the letter briefs and a discovery conference.

Compare

6. Amicus briefs

Amicus briefs are routinely accepted by the Hawai'i Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of Appeals. Typically, amicus briefs are limited to 10 pages.

Compare

VI. Substantive law on contesting subpoenas

Compare

A. Burden, standard of proof

HRCP 45 and HRPP 17 state that a subpoena may be quashed "if it is unreasonable and oppressive." There are no cases applying that standard in the specific context of the reporters' privilege. The person moving to quash the subpoena has the burden of meeting the standard.

Compare

B. Elements

Compare

1. Relevance of material to case at bar

If Hawai'i courts recognize the reporter's privilege, the factor that seems to be most critical in determining whether the privilege applies is the relevance of the information sought from the reporter to the case. The Hawai'i Supreme Court in Goodfader declined to recognize an evidentiary privilege because disclosure of the reporter's confidential sources of information in that case was of overriding importance to the plaintiff in the case.

In DeRoburt, one of the factors considered by the court in determining whether the plaintiff in a defamation case was entitled to disclosure of the reporters' sources was whether disclosure was a "critical element" and went "to the heart" of the plaintiff's case.

In Belanger, the trial court applied the reporters' privilege because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the photographs were necessary or critical to his claim.

Compare

2. Material unavailable from other sources

The Belanger court cited the unavailability of the requested information from other sources as a reason for applying the reporters' privilege.

Compare

a. How exhaustive must search be?

There are no reported cases.

Compare

b. What proof of search does a subpoenaing party need to make?

There are no reported cases.

Compare

c. Source is an eyewitness to a crime

There are no reported cases.

Compare

3. Balancing of interests

Although Hawai'i courts have not explicitly articulated a test for applying the reporters' privilege, Goodfader suggests that a court should balance the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press with the court's fundamental authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and to exact their testimony, as well as the right of a litigant to gather evidence. Goodfader, 45 Haw. at 329, 334-35, 367 P.2d at 480.

DeRoburt examined three factors to determine whether the privilege applies: (1) is the information relevant, (2) can the information be obtained by alternative means, and (3) is there a compelling interest in the information?

Compare

4. Subpoena not overbroad or unduly burdensome

A subpoena cannot be overly broad or unduly burdensome. In State v. Pacarro, 61 Haw. 84, 595 P.2d 295 (1979), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a subpoena duces tecum cannot be phrased in general terms, without specification or particularization of the documents required to be produced. The designated documents or objects must be of an evidentiary nature and also meet the tests of relevancy and admissibility. A subpoena duces tecum is not a means for conducting a "fishing expedition."

Compare

5. Threat to human life

There is no authority in Hawai'i addressing this factor.

Compare

6. Material is not cumulative

There is no authority in Hawai'i addressing this factor.

Compare

7. Civil/criminal rules of procedure

Hawai'i's rules of civil and criminal procedure do not specify the methods for contesting frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoenas. A motion to quash is the means for objecting to a subpoena for in person testimony. Written objections may be filed within 10 days (or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if the time specified is less than 10 days) to a subpoena requesting inspection or copying of documents.

Compare

8. Other elements

None.

Compare

C. Waiver or limits to testimony

Compare

1. Is the privilege waivable?

There are no reported cases.

Compare

2. Elements of waiver

There are no reported cases.

Compare

a. Disclosure of confidential source's name

Compare

b. Disclosure of non-confidential source's name

Compare

c. Partial disclosure of information

Compare

d. Other elements

Compare

3. Agreement to partially testify act as waiver?

There are no reported cases.

Compare

VII. What constitutes compliance?

Compare

A. Newspaper articles

Under Rule 902(6) of the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence, newspapers are self-authenticating.

 

Compare

B. Broadcast materials

Typically, the subpoenaed party will designate a custodian of records who will produce the materials. In typical practice the records are usually requested by a deposition upon written questions.

Compare

C. Testimony vs. affidavits

No reported cases, but in practice most media attorneys in Hawaii will attempt to work out an agreement with the parties to have the article or material in question authenticated by affidavit or declaration, thus obviating the need for live testimony. In most cases this turns out to be sufficient.

Compare

D. Non-compliance remedies

There is no current Hawai‘i statute or other authority addressing this issue.

Compare

1. Civil contempt

Compare

a. Fines

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding caps on fines for contempt. However, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has the authority to mitigate or reduce fines imposed on civil contempt when the promotion of justice would be better enhanced by such mitigation or reduction. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-5(7). There are no recent experiences with reporters being jailed or fined for refusal to comply with a subpoena.

Compare

b. Jail

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding the length of jail sentences permissible. Again, however, there are no recent experiences with reporters being jailed or fined for refusal to comply with a subpoena.

Compare

2. Criminal contempt

Whereas civil contempt is a sanction to enforce compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained due to noncompliance, criminal contempt is punitive in purpose. Hawaii Pub. Employment Relations Bd. v. United Pub. Workers, 66 Haw. 461, 667 P.2d 783 (1983); State v. Brown, 70 Haw. 459, 776 P.2d 1182 (1989). To impose sanctions for criminal contempt, intent to disobey a court order is required and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Hawaii Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 66 Haw. 461, 667 P.2d 783.

Compare

3. Other remedies

In DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., 507 F. Supp. 880 (D. Haw. 1981), the federal district court in Hawai'i held that a reporter's refusal to comply with an order to disclose his or her sources of information gives rise to a presumption that the reporter had no source. The presumption may be removed by disclosure of the sources at a reasonable time before trial.

Compare

VIII. Appealing

Compare

A. Timing

Compare

1. Interlocutory appeals

There is no authority in Hawai'i stating that a reporter must wait until he or she is held in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena before appealing a denial of a motion to quash.

In order to appeal an interlocutory order, the appealing party must apply for leave from the court issuing the order from which appeal is sought to be taken. HRS § 641-1(b). Within thirty days from the filing of the order being appealed, the appealing party must request leave to file an interlocutory appeal, the court must enter an order pursuant to HRCP Rule 45(b) granting such leave, and the appealing party must file a notice of appeal in the court that issued the order being appealed. HRAP 4(a)(1); King v. Wholesale Produce Dealers Ass'n, 69 Haw. 334, 335, 741 P.2d 721, 722 (1987). The thirty-day period runs from the entry of the order appealed from, not from the date that leave to appeal is granted. King, 69 Haw. at 335, 741 P.2d at 722.

Alternatively, an appeal might possibly be taken under the collateral order doctrine. International Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Woods, 69 Haw. 11, 731 P.2d 151 (1987); Association of Owners of Kukui Plaza v. Swinerton & Walburg, 68 Haw. 98, 705 P.2d 28 (1985). The doctrine allows appeals from orders falling "in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." Swinerton, 68 Haw. at 105, 705 P.2d at 34 (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)). An interlocutory order is appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine if it: "(1) fully disposes of the question at issue; (2) resolves an issue completely collateral to the merits of the case; and (3) involves important rights which would be irreparably lost if review had to await a final judgment." State v. Baranco, 77 Hawai'i 351, 353-54, 884 P.2d 729, 731-32 (1994) (citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 658-59 (1977)). An appeal taken pursuant to the collateral order doctrine is governed by the same time limits applicable to an ordinary interlocutory appeal.

Finally, if an appeal is not available, a writ of mandamus could be sought. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; and (2) a lack of other means adequately to redress the wrong or to obtain the requested action. State v. Oshiro, 69 Haw. 438, 441, 746 P.2d 568, 570 (1987). A petition for a writ of mandamus is not intended to take the place of an appeal. Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Haw. 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-339 (1998). A writ of mandamus is warranted where there is a showing of "irremedial abuse resulting in a denial of justice." Fong v. Sapienza, 39 Haw. 79, 79 (1951). A writ of mandamus will not be issued if the right to appeal is available. Brown v. Hawkins, 50 Haw. 232, 235, 437 P.2d 97, 98 (1968). In practice such extraordinary writs are rarely granted.

Compare

2. Expedited appeals

A motion to expedite an appeal may be filed pursuant to Rules 2, 27, and 28 of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 27 provides that an application for an order or other relief from the Hawai'i Supreme Court shall be made by filing a written motion with proof of service on all other parties. Rule 2 permits a Hawai'i appellate court to suspend the requirements or provisions of any of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure in the interest of expediting a decision. Rule 28 governs the timing for filing of briefs. In the motion to expedite, the movant should request that Rule 28, along with any other applicable rules, be suspended or modified to expedite a decision on the appeal.

Compare

B. Procedure

Compare

1. To whom is the appeal made?

The Intermediate Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over all appeals from the circuit courts. HRS § 602-57. A party to the appeal may apply for a transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court. HRS § 607-58; HRAP 40.2. A party may also seek Supreme Court review of a decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals by filing an application for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. HRS § 607-59; HRAP 40.1.

Compare

2. Stays pending appeal

A stay may be sought by filing a motion. The movant may have to need security in order to obtain a stay, such as a supersedeas bond. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-3.

Compare

3. Nature of appeal

If the order being appealed from has merged into judgment, then there is an appeal as of right. However, if the order appealed from is not part of a final judgment, then the appeal is interlocutory in nature, and leave from the trial court must be obtained unless the collateral order doctrine applies. By contrast, a petition for a writ of mandamus is treated as an independent action that invokes the original jurisdiction of the appellate court.

Compare

4. Standard of review

The order of a court quashing or enforcing a subpoena will be disturbed on appeal only if plainly arbitrary and without support in the record. Powers v. Shaw, 1 Haw. App. 374, 619 P.2d 1098 (1980).

Compare

5. Addressing mootness questions

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding whether an appeal of an order denying a motion quash a subpoena is moot where the trial or grand jury session for which the subpoena was issued has concluded.

Compare

6. Relief

There are no reported cases, but if the court will not quash the subpoena and the reporter is held in contempt, the reporter's attorney should strongly consider filing a writ of mandamus. Although such extraordinary writs are rarely granted, a contempt order is one situation where the appellate court might strongly consider granting such relief.

Compare

IX. Other issues

Compare

A. Newsroom searches

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding newsroom searches.

Compare

B. Separation orders

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding separation orders issued against reporters who are on the witness list of a trial they are covering. In practice, it is a good idea for the reporter's employer's attorney to attempt to work out such issues beforehand.

Compare

C. Third-party subpoenas

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding subpoenas issued to third parties in an attempt to discover a reporter's source.

Compare

D. The source's rights and interests

There is no authority in Hawai'i regarding whether sources may intervene anonymously to halt disclosure of their identities, or whether sources may sue a reporter for disclosure of their identities.

Compare