People of the Territory of Guam v Superior Court of Guam [1997] GUSC 6; 1997 Guam 07 (13 May 1997)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
TERRITORY OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Petitioner,

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
Respondent,

vs.

JOSEPH ALEJO QUINT
Real Party in Interest.

Case No. WRM97-001
Filed: May 13, 1997

Cite as: 1997 Guam 7

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Argued and Submitted on March 12, 1997
Agana, Guam

Attorney for the Petitioner
GERAD EGAN, Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Prosecution Division
Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Building
120 West O’Brien Drive
Agana, Guam 96910

Attorney for the Real Party in Interest
JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA, JR., ESQ.
Arriola, Cowan & Arriola
259 Martyr Street, Suite 201
P.O. Box X, Agana, Guam 96910

Attorney for Respondent
DONNA M. CRUZ, Staff Attorney
Superior Court of Guam
Judicial Center Building
120 West O’Brien Drive
Agana, Guam 96910

__________________________

OPINION

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS, and JOSE LEON GUERRERO[1], Associate Justices.

SIGUENZA, C.J.:

The People of the Territory of Guam petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate a discovery order requiring disclosure of documents concerning an ongoing homicide investigation. Both real party in interest and respondent oppose the petition.

The facts and circumstances of this case, when applied to the standards under which this Court issues mandamus relief, lead us to conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[1] The real party in interest, Joseph Quint, filed a written Motion for Discovery on January 16, 1997. Quint>s motion requested several items of discovery from petitioner and specifically listed Guam police report #96-16587. The subject matter of this particular report is an ongoing homicide investigation consisting of approximately 2,000 pages of documents. Petitioner did not file a written response objecting to the requested items.

[2] Oral argument on the motion was heard on February 13, 1997 and later on February 19, 1997. Initially, the petitioner agreed to provide all of the requested items. However, after counsel for Quint voluntarily disclosed the subject matter of the police report, the petitioner retreated from this position and opposed divulging the information.

[3] In support of nondisclosure, the petitioner initially articulated two different arguments. First, petitioner argued that Quint was not entitled to the documents in question because they were not relevant to his case. Second, according to the petitioner, the ongoing homicide investigation would be jeopardized by disclosure. Petitioner later agreed, however, that some of these documents could be relevant to defendant>s case. During the discussions of these issues, petitioner suggested that the court conduct an in camera review of the documents to verify his assertions.

[4] The trial court addressed these concerns and found that Quint had made a showing that the documents were material to his defense and that the request was reasonable. In addition, given this finding, the court stated that petitioner had not provided specific reasons why these items should not be turned over. The trial court consequently granted the motion for discovery and ordered the 2,000 pages turned over by March 6, 1997. Addressing the risk to the investigation, the trial court imposed a personal gag order on Quint and his counsel requiring that they not disclose information gained from the discovery. The court also declined to conduct an in camera review of the documents at that time. Instead, the court gave the petitioner time to review the documents and submit parts of the police report, under seal, with specific objections as to disclosure. Neither sealed documents nor objections were submitted.

[5] An ex-parte hearing was held on March 5, 1997. The petitioner asked the court to stay its previously issued discovery order pending the forthcoming writ. The court denied the request because the petitioner had not exhausted his available remedies. The court explained that the opportunity for in camera inspection previously made available to the petitioner had not yet been exercised. The court further explained that its prerequisite to in camera review, the submission of sealed documents accompanied by specific written objections, had not been complied with. Because the petitioner asserted that the opportunity for in camera review was specifically precluded at the previous hearing, the court then clarified its ruling. The petitioner was specifically advised that in camera review was an option that could still be exercised. This option was not pursued. Instead, the petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking relief from the lower court’s discovery order.

[6] The Court heard oral argument on this matter on March 12, 1997. Both real party in interest and the respondent objected to petitioner>s reply brief based on its untimely filing. In addition, respondent objected as it had not been served with the documents. Petitioner did not dispute these objections.

II. DISCUSSION

[7] When a petition for a writ of mandamus comes before the Court, we must first decide whether mandamus relief would either be appropriate or necessary. This Court previously described mandamus relief as an extraordinary remedy that would be used in extreme situations. Guam Publications, Inc. v. Superior Court of Guam v. People and Bruneman, 1996 Guam 6, &10. We will employ the writ in order to Aconfine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.@ Id. (citations omitted). We require the petitioning party to bear the burden of justifying the issuance of a writ. Kerr v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).

[8] Issuance of a writ of mandamus is a matter of discretion. 7 GCA '31401; See also Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. To guide the exercise of our discretion, we balance, if applicable, the following factors: 1) Whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to attain the desired relief; 2) Whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; 3) Whether the court>s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; 4) Whether the court>s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the rules; and 5) Whether the court>s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law or first impression. Guam Publications, 1996 Guam 6, & 11. These factors, however, will not relieve us of our own reasoned and independent analysis of the issues. In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 688 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, this framework of factors is a starting point in our determination of the propriety of mandamus relief.