Sei sulla pagina 1di 26

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-1

Exhibit 1

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 4

CaseCase3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA1:11-cv-00402-RCL

DocumentDocument3530-1FiledFiled08/30/1105/21/12PagePage1 of23of 4

Friends of TheFogBow.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORLY TAITZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL)

ORDER

Before the Court are several pending motions, all of which will be denied for the reasons

set forth below.

Plaintiff’s Motion [12] to Compel Preparation of a Vaughn Index requests an order

requiring defendant to provide an itemized inventory of every agency record responsive to

plaintiff’s FOIA request that defendant asserts is exempt from disclosure. As discussed in the

Court’s Memorandum Opinion issued this date, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)

withheld only one responsive document as exempt from disclosure. As there is no need for a

Vaughn Index in this case, plaintiff’s Motion [12] to Compel is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion [18] to Strike Defendant’s Answer asserts that defendant filed his

answer to her amended complaint twenty days late. She thus asks the Court to strike the answer

and enter a default judgment in her favor. Plaintiff’s Motion [20] for Default Judgment, like her

Motion to Strike, also seeks a default judgment on the basis of defendant’s late filing. To serve

the United States, a plaintiff must serve a copy of the summons and complaint on “the United

States attorney for the district where the action is brought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i). Under

1

CaseCase3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA1:11-cv-00402-RCL

DocumentDocument3530-1FiledFiled08/30/1105/21/12PagePage2 of33of 4

Friends of TheFogBow.com

the FOIA statute, a “defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint

within thirty days of service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is

made.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(C). Plaintiff served her first amended complaint and summons on

the U.S. Attorney on April 3, 2011 [8]. Thus, defendant’s answer was due within thirty days of

April 3, 2011. Because defendant did not file his answer until May 23, 2011, defendant is in

default. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, however, that a “default judgment may be

entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a

claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d) (emphasis

added). For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion issued this date, the Court

finds that plaintiff has failed to establish a claim or right to relief, and thus is not entitled a

default judgment in this case.

Furthermore, “[d]efault judgments are not favored by modern courts,” particularly where

such judgments are “unwarranted by the facts.” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir.

1980). This Circuit has explained that default judgments are normally reserved for cases in

which “the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Id.

at 836 (quoting H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691

(D.C. Cir. 1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cognizant of “the strong policies favoring

the resolution of genuine disputes on their merits,” id. at 834, the Court notes that this is not a

case where defendant has been an “essentially unresponsive party.” Id. at 836. Rather, defendant

answered

plaintiff’s

amended

complaint

before

plaintiff

moved

for

an

entry of

default.

Accordingly, the Court will neither strike defendant’s answer nor enter a default judgment

against defendant. Plaintiff’s Motion [18] to Strike and Motion [20] for Default Judgment are

therefore DENIED.

2

CaseCase3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA1:11-cv-00402-RCL

DocumentDocument3530-1FiledFiled08/30/1105/21/12PagePage3 of43of 4

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Plaintiff’s Motion [19] for Clarification requests clarification of this Court’s Order [13]

requiring plaintiff to refile her complaint and amended complaint with properly redacted social

security numbers. Plaintiff has already filed her redacted complaint [16] and amended complaint

[17], and thus her Motion [19] for Clarification is DENIED as moot.

Finally, plaintiff’s Motion [22] to Compel asks the Court to compel compliance with a

Rule 45 subpoena issued by plaintiff to the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii. The

subpoena seeks access to the original long-form birth certificate issued to the President in 1961.

The requested birth certificate has nothing to do with this case, which relates to plaintiff’s FOIA

request for various documents in the possession of the SSA. Inspection of the birth certificate

would resolve none of the issues before this Court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion [22] to

Compel is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on August 30, 2011.

3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-2

Exhibit 2

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 15

Document 30-2

Filed 10/26/11

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 3

PageID #:

182

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

DR. ORLY TAITZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONS OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL NO. 11-00519 SOM-RLP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR

EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND

VACATING HEARING

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND VACATING HEARING

On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff Orlay Taitz (“Plaintiff”)

filed an Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Emergency Order To Show

Cause and to Compel Attendance for Production of Documents and

for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”). Docket No. 1. The

Motion sought to enforce a subpoena issued in a case proceeding

in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL) (“District of Columbia action”).

The subpoena sought to compel third-party witness Loretta Fuddy,

Director of Health, State of Hawaii, to produce for inspection

the original birth certificate of the President of the United

States Barack Obama.

The Court determined that the Motion should be heard in

the normal course and set a hearing for September 14, 2011.

Docket No. 4. On August 24, 2011, Ms. Fuddy filed a Memorandum

in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. Docket No. 9. At a hearing

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 15

Document 30-2

Filed 10/26/11

Filed 05/21/12

Page 2 of 2

Page 3 of 3

PageID #:

183

before Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway on August 30, 2011, the

court was informed that the District of Columbia action had been

dismissed. See Docket No. 12. Plaintiff informed the court that

she would be filing a motion for reconsideration of the District

of Columbia court’s decision. Id. The court continued the

hearing on the Motion and ordered that Plaintiff file her reply

by September 20, 2011, which she did.

See id.; Docket No. 20.

The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition

without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

Hawaii. The hearing set for November 21, 2011 is VACATED. The

United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued

a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration. Taitz v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL),

2011 WL 3805741 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011). Because the District of

Columbia action has been dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, OCTOBER 26, 2011

IS SO ORDERED. DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, OCTOBER 26, 2011 Richard L. Puglisi United States Magistrate
IS SO ORDERED. DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, OCTOBER 26, 2011 Richard L. Puglisi United States Magistrate

Richard L. Puglisi

United States Magistrate Judge

TAITZ V. ASTRUE, CIVIL NO. 11-00519 SOM-RLP; ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND VACATING HEARING

2

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-3

Exhibit 3

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 4

Friends of TheFogBow.com

SLC

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

DAVIDM. LOUIE

Attorney General,

State of Hawai'i

2162

HEIDI M. RIAN

JILL T. NAGAMINE

REBECCA E. QUINN 8663

Deputy Attorneys General

465

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 587-3050

Facsimile: (808) 587-3077

Email: lill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov

3473

3513

South King Street, Room 200

Document 30-3

Attorneys for Loretta Fuddy

Director of Health, State of Hawaii and

Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar of the

Department of Health, State of Hawaii

Filed 05/21/12

Page 2 of 4

WI;//K

C ERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

DR.

ORLY TAITZ, ESQ .,

vs.

Plaintiff,

LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF

HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF

HAWAII,

Defendants.

CIVIL NO.

11-1-1731-08 RAN

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS

UNDER UNITED (SIC) INFORMATION

PRACTICES ACT STATUTE 92F, STATE OF

HAWAII FILED AUGUST 10, 2011

HEARING

DATE :

TIME:

JUDGE:

October 12, 2011

8:30 a.m.

Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura

--

-

R

Ut~

o-!'"4c;.

OlO'c

Compliance Program

Dale:

NOV

0 9 2011

i@\/

:z:"'_

-t-to

OCe")

::5:z:,

-~i>

~>e")

z_C")

C~$

N

CD

:

:%

-

-

••

- -5

10th Di vision

:z:"'_ -t-to OCe") ::5:z:, -~i> ~>e") z_C") C~$ N CD : :% - - •• •

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-3

Filed 05/21/12

Page 3 of 4

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS UNDER UNITED (SIC) INFORMATION

PRACTICES

ACT STATUTE 92F, STATE OF HAWAII FILED AUGUST 10,2011

On August 10, 2011, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. ("Plaintiff') filed her Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus Request for Inspection of Records under United (sic) Information Practices Act

Statute 92F, State of Hawaii ("Petition") against Loretta Fuddy, in her official capacity as

Director of the

capacity as the

Department of Health State of Hawaii, and Dr. Alvin T . Onaka, in his official

Registrar, Department of Health State of Hawaii ("Defendants") . The Petition

sought a Writ of Mandamus advising the Defendants that (I) the President has waived any

claims of privacy in his long form birth certificate by making a public disclosure of the

document, (2 ) section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), does not apply to the President' s

long form birth certificate and that Defendants erred in relying on that statute in refusing to allow

Plaintiff to inspect the document, (3) Defendants are obligated to allow Plaintiff to inspect the

President's long form birth certificate, and (4) Defendants are liable to Plaintifffor her costs and

fees.

On September 2, 20 11, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus Request for Inspection of Records under United (sic) Information Practices Act

Statute 92F,

State of Hawaii filed August 10, 2011 ("Motion"). Plaintiff submitted an

Opposition to Motion Petition for Writ of Mandamus on October 4, 2011 , and Defendant's

Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of

Mandamus was filed October 7, 2011 .

On October 12, 2012, at 8:30 a.m ., the Motion came on for hearing before the Honorable

Rhonda A. Nishimura.

Plaintiff appeared Pro Se, and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn,

Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawaii, appeared on behalf of the Defendants.

437545JDOC

2

-- '- -

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-3

Filed 05/21/12

Page 4 of 4

The Court, having considered all pleadings filed herein, the memoranda both in support

of and in opposition to the motion, the arguments of counsel and Plaintiff Pro Se, the applicable

law, and the record and files in this case, hereby finds as follows:

I.

2.

Relief is not available to Plaintiff pursuant to a Writ of Mandamus.

Plaintiff wants this Court to consider her Petition as an agency appeal pursuant to

chapter 91, HRS; her pleadings do not constitute an agency appeal, nor would an agency appeal

be proper under the circumstances presented.

3.

Going beyond Plaintiffs requests to treat this matter as an agency appeal, if the

Court treats the Petition as a Complaint, there is still no basis upon which to grant Plaintiff the

relief she seeks.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that:

1.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Request for

Inspection of Records under United (sic) Information Practices Act Statute 92F, State of Hawaii

filed August

2.

10, 2011 is granted.

All of Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,

-+.<i i""f'·+.-/-'-=--\jgL,Z~gI+11l------

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

.72\~~I;n/I

HONORABLE RHON'lJA A. NISHIMURA

JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

Plaintiff Pro Se

/I HONORABLE RHON'lJA A. NISHIMURA JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. Plaintiff Pro

3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-4

Exhibit 4

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-4

Filed 05/21/12

Page 2 of 3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-4

Filed 05/21/12

Page 3 of 3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-5

Exhibit 5

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 5

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

DAVIDM. LOUIE

Attorney General,

State of Hawai'i

2162

HEIDIM. RIAN 3473

JILL T. NAGAMINE 3513

REBECCA E. QUINN

8663

Deputy Attorneys General

465

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 587-3050

Facsimile: (808) 587-3077

Email: JiILT.Nagamine@hawaii.gov

South King Street, Room 200

Document 30-5

Attorneys for Loretta Fuddy

Director of Health, State of Hawaii and

Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar of the

Department of Health, State of Hawaii

Filed 05/21/12

Page 2 of 5

fIRST CIRCUI i COURi

STAlE OF HAWAIi

fiLeD

2U12 FEB -9

AM 10.07

H. CHING

CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

DR ORLYTAITZ, ESQ.,

vs.

Plaintiff,

LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF

HAWAll, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF

HAWAII,

Defendants.

CIVIL NO.

11-1-1731-08 RAN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING

MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER

PENDING REHEARING MOTION FILED

DECEMBER 6, 2011

HEARING

DATE:

TIME:

JUDGE:

January 6,2012

9:00 a.m.

Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING

MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDING REHEARING FILED DECEMBER 6,2011

On August 10,2011, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. ("Plaintiff') filed her Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus Request for Inspection of Records under United (sic) Information Practices Act

filed her Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Request for Inspection of Records under United (sic)

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-5

Filed 05/21/12

(

Page 3 of 5

Statute 92F, State of Hawaii ("Petition") against Loretta Fuddy, in her official capacity as

Director of the Department of Health State of Hawaii, and Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, in his official

capacity as the Registrar, Department of Health State of Hawaii ("Defendants"). The Petition

sought a Writ of Mandamus advising the Defendants that (1) the President has waived any

claims of privacy in his long form birth certificate by making a public disclosure ofthe

document, (2) section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (RRS), does not apply to the President's

long form birth certificate and that Defendants erred in relying on that statute in refusing to allow

Plaintiffto inspect the document, (3) Defendants are obligated to allow Plaintiff to inspect the

President's long form birth certificate, and (4) Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for her costs and

fees.

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Request for

Inspection of Records under United (sic) Information Practices Act Statute 92F, State of Hawaii

filed August

10,2011 ("Motion") on September 2,2011. Plaintiff filed an opposition and

Defendants filed a reply on October 4,2011 and October 7, 2011, respectively.

On October 12,2012, the Motion came on for hearing before the Honorable Rhonda A.

Nishimura. Plaintiff appeared Pro Se, and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy

Attorneys General, State of Hawaii, appeared on behalf of the Defendants.

The Motion was

granted, and all of Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

On November 1, 2011 Plaintiff filed her Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to

Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing ("Emergency Motion") and it was set for hearing on

November 30,2011. Defendants filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply on November 18,

2011

and November 29,2011, respectively. On November 30,2011, Plaintiff appeared Pro Se,

and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawaii,

2

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

(

Document 30-5

Filed 05/21/12

Page 4 of 5

appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Plaintiffwithdrew her Emergency Motion and was

granted leave to file an Amended Emergency Motion.

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed her Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing

Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing, and it was set for hearing on January 6,2012 at

9:00 a.m. Plaintiff also filed her "Emergency MotionlRequest for the Court to Docket

"Amended Motion for Rehearing", which was Received by the Clerk of Court on 11.21.2011 by

Certified Mail, but Never Docketed and Never Given to the Judge." That was set for hearing on

January 6, 2012 as well.

On December 16,2011, Defendants filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs

Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing. On

January 4,2012, Plaintiff filed her Reply to Opposition to Plaintiffs Amended Emergency

Motion for Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing.

On January 6,2012, Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to

Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing came on for hearing before the Honorable Rhonda A.

Nishimura. Present were Plaintiff, Pro Se, and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputies

Attorney General, representing Defendants.

The Court, having considered all pleadings filed herein, the memoranda both in support

of and in opposition to the motion, the arguments of counsel and Plaintiff Pro Se, the applicable

law, and the record and files in this case, hereby finds as follows:

1.

Plaintiff has provided the Court with no newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for relief under Rule 59, Hawaii Rules

of Civil Procedure, or which would justify ordering relief from the dismissal with prejudice.

445933JDOC

3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-5

Filed 05/21/12

Page 5 of 5

2.

Plaintiffs Emergency MotionlRequest for the Court to Docket "Amended Motion

for Rehearing", which was Received by the Clerk of Court on 11 .21.2011 by Certified Mail, but

Never Docketed and Never Given to the Judge was made moot by the filing of and setting for

hearing Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion and no further action was requested or taken.

3.

Plaintiff has presented nothing which supports any of her claims.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that:

1.

Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order

Pending Rehearing Relief is denied.

2.

The Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Request

for Inspection of Records Under United (sic) Information Practices Act Statute 92F, State of

Hawaii filed August 10, 2011, entered October 12, 2011 and filed on November 10, 2011 shall

stand.

3.

Plaintiffs Emergency MotionlRequest for the Court to Docket "Amended Motion

for Rehearing", which was Received by the Clerk of Court on 11.21.2011 by Certified Mail, but

Never Docketed and Never Given to the Judge is denied because it is moot.

4.

A final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice shall enter:- \?()

fil<d fl.(t'tlont i1I ~I(,r 5'g'

HtuF.

1$( ~

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _

F

E_S'------'7~20J.4.12lr

------

Hawaii, _ F E_S'---- --'7~20J.4.12lr ------ APPROVED AS TO FORM: DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. Plaintiff Pro

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

Plaintiff Pro Se

445933JDOC

4

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-6

Exhibit 6

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 4

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

DAVID M. LOUIE

Attorney General,

State of Hawai'i

2162

Document 30-6

HEIDI M. RlAN 3473

JILL T. NAGAMINE 3513

REBECCA E. QUINN 8663

Deputy Attorneys General

465 South King Street, Room 200

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 587-3050

Facsimile: (808) 587-3077

Email: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov

Attorneys for Loretta Fuddy

Director of Health, State of Hawaii and

Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar of the

Department of Health, State of Hawaii

Filed 05/21/12

Page 2 of 4

FiRST CII\CUI r COURi

STAlf OF HAWf~1I

2012

FILED

F~B -9

AM 10: 01

H. CH1H_G

CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.,

vs.

Plaintiff,

LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF

HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF

HAWAII,

Defendants.

----------------~------------~

CIVIL NO.

11-1-1731-08 RAN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

RECIPROCAL SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT

(SIC), FILED JANUARY 5, 2011

HEARING

DATE:

TIME:

JUDGE:

January 13,2012

9:00 a.m.

Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION RECIPROCAL SUBPOENA

ENFORCEMENT (SIC), FILED JANUARY 5, 2011

On October 122011, all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants were dismissed with

prejudice.

On January 6,2012, Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to

Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing, filed on December 6, 2011 was denied.

447771JDOC

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-6

Filed 05/21/12

Page 3 of 4

On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement (sic) that

was initially set for hearing on January 26, 2012. On January 9, 2012, upon Plaintiffs ex parte

motion, this Court rescheduled the hearing for January

13,2012.

On January 13,2011, at 9:00 a.m., Plaintiffs Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement

(sic) came on for hearing before the Honorable Rhonda A. Nishimura. Plaintiff appeared Pro Se

and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawaii,

appeared on behalf of the Defendants.

The Court, having considered all pleadings filed herein, the memoranda both in support

of and in opposition to the motion, the arguments of counsel and Plaintiff Pro Se, the applicable

law, and the record and files in this case, hereby finds as follows:

1.

For reasons stated on the record, nothing in the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure

or any other authority referenced by Plaintiff affords Plaintiff the relief she seeks.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that:

1.

2.

Plaintiffs Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement (sic) is denied.

The Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Request

for Inspection of Records Under United (sic) Information Practices Act Statute 92F, State of

Hawaii filed August 10,2011, entered October 12,2011 and filed on November 10,2011 shall

stand.

3.

A final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice shall~

b-d

-A t<.,f pu rcu a I1t- ~ ~ I~ ~f

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,

FFB - 7. ;.I.n.·~12

t:_'

~-,-_:

::

-

_

f{ W

/::.;;"::-~--. -,

!/~- p'

i"

RHOf \'DA A. NISHI;-/i~-,Hj\ \1-

t.

;"l

~\ t A \.

~'."

, ~~

.

447771JDOC

2

{s(pttJ

.

Friends of TheFogBow.com

/ Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

Plaintiff Pro Se

Document 30-6

Filed 05/21/12

(

Page 4 of 4

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. vs. Loretta Fuddy in Her Official Capacity as Director of the Department of

Health, State of Hawaii, et aI., Civil No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

AMENDED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING MOTION TO STAY FINAL

ORDER PENDING REHEARING MOTION FILED DECEMBER 6,2011

447771JDOC

3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-7

Exhibit 7

Filed 05/21/12

Page 1 of 3

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-7

Filed 05/21/12

NO. SCPW-12-0000014

Page 2 of 3

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000014

12-JAN-2012

12:52 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

DR. ORLY TAITZ, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Dr. Orly Taitz's

petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails

to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not

intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the

lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in

lieu of normal appellate procedures. ). Accordingly,

Friends of TheFogBow.com

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA

Document 30-7

Filed 05/21/12

Page 3 of 3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, January 12, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2