COM 1267.001 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

°',k,,~ Lincoln S.T. Ashida ` i,;~; Corporation Counsel Harry Kim ' ' ~ " i; Mayor ' ' Gerald Takase Assisfanf Corporation ~~t: of N~~'`' Counsel COUNTY OF HA~IUAI`I OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4262 (808) 961-8251 Fax (808) 961-8622 May 29, 2008 Sent via emar'!~ no hard co will follow ,~~~r a Honorable Pete Hoffmann and Members of ` the Hawaii County Council Coun{~~/ of Hawaii ,~~i ::~{Y / 4 F r' nd iv v a. , t 333 Kilauea Ave., 2 Floor ' .~W L ~ ~..r .:,rm ~a. r Hilo, HI 96720 . Dear Chair Hoffmann and Council Members: RE; Melissa Chang v. County of Hawaii, Hawaii Coun#y Council EEOC No. 37B-2007-00006 An article in the May 29, 2008 edition of the West Hawai' i Today erroneously suggests the Hawaii County Council may effectively waive the attorney-client privilege concerning discussions of this case, thereby making the records and discussions of this case immediately public. This is not legally correct. What remains in effect at the present time is the order of the Federal Administrative Law Judge sealing the records of this case, pursuant to the Federal Privac Ac#. This request was made at the request of the plaintiff. Any y f . waiver of the attorney-client privilege by the Council will have no legal effect on the order of the Administrative Law Judge. In effect, the order of the Court controls. UVhat the newspaper article should have correctly reported is once this case has reached its conclusion, and the order of the Administrative Law Judge is lifted, extinguished, or is no longer in place, then it will be the decision of the client Hawaii County Council whether to waive the attorney-client privilege in order to allow public review of any privileged documents or discussions. For the time being, the order of the Court must be respected, and we so advise our client Hawaii County Council. C ~ Hawaii Count is an E ua1 Opporfunity Employer and Provider Re#. Y~ Y q def. Da~b,:~,~