The Office of Information Practices (OIP) in Hawaii unveiled its accomplishments for the Fiscal Year 2025, with figures that indicate a high rate of case resolutions. According to the State of Hawaii OIP annual report, 96% of the 1,922 formal and informal cases were settled within the year. Remarkably, the majority of the informal cases, amounting to 1,695 inquiries, were dealt with in under 24 hours. For the formal cases, which were 227 in total, OIP managed to resolve over 66% in the same year, issuing 35 opinions in the process.
Last year’s report also highlighted the updates made to the OIP’s online resources. Sending a strong signal of commitment to education and transparency in governmental processes, they have revised and supplemented their online Training page with 10 fresh training materials and forms. However, managing to resolve so many cases in such a timely manner, the exact contents of the email that sparked the legal case was missing in the summary provided by OIP.
Turning to the legal landscape, OIP has also updated the Court Opinions List with recent appellate opinions relating to the state's transparency laws. The list was compiled to help the public and practitioners alike navigate the intricacies of the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) and Sunshine Law, significant for ensuring government accountability and public access to information.
One notable appellate court decision from 2025 involved the Department of Public Safety, now known as the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, concerning privacy and negligence. An employee's email sent to approximately 260 staffers about the COVID-19 vaccination attestation requirement inadvertently displayed all recipients’ addresses. Triggering a lawsuit by the Hawaii Government Employees’ Association and United Public Workers, the case alleged that DPS disclosed employees' vaccination status and acted negligently. Being the response to the Governor's COVID-19 Emergency Proclamation, whether the employee shared the vaccine status of the recipients was in dispute, with OIP implying that the act wasn't intentional.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled recently on the case, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hawaii Government Employees’ Ass’n. v. Department of Public Safety, that the UIPA doesn't provide a private cause of action against disclosures of private information but did find that the plaintiffs could potentially prove an invasion of privacy tort claim. Despite this, the court dismissed the negligence and negligent supervision claims, determining that the DPS employee was acting within the scope of employment and that neither the UIPA nor the emergency proclamation imposed a legal duty regarding personal information disclosure in this context.
