The Supreme Court of Hawaii denied a motion for reconsideration filed by a plastic surgery practice in a public records case involving the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, according to an order issued Jan. 21, 2026.
The court rejected the motion filed by Dr. S. Lawrence Schlesinger and his medical facilities, Phoenix Group LLC doing business as The Breast Implant Center of Hawaii and Mommy Makeover Institute of Hawaii. The justices found that the court had not overlooked or misapprehended any points of law or fact in its previous ruling.
The case stems from an original proceeding filed by the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest against Judge James S. Kawashima of the First Circuit Court. The media organization sought relief from a lower court decision involving the plastic surgery practice, though the specific nature of the public records dispute was not detailed in the order.
In their Jan. 15, 2026 motion for reconsideration, the medical respondents asked the high court to revisit its earlier decision. However, the five-justice panel unanimously determined that reconsideration was not warranted under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b).
Chief Justice Sabrina McKenna led the panel that included Justices Todd Eddins, Lisa Ginoza, and Vladimir Devens, along with Circuit Judge Taryn Tomasa, who was assigned due to a vacancy on the court.
The order represents another chapter in what appears to be a transparency battle between a news organization and a private medical practice. The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, which advocates for government accountability and press freedom, frequently pursues public records cases to ensure transparency in government operations.
Dr. Schlesinger operates specialty cosmetic surgery practices focusing on breast augmentation and body contouring procedures commonly known as "mommy makeovers." His Phoenix Group operates both The Breast Implant Center of Hawaii and Mommy Makeover Institute of Hawaii.
The involvement of a circuit court judge as a respondent suggests the case may have originated from a lower court's handling of public records requests or related litigation. When media organizations challenge judicial decisions regarding access to public information, they typically file original proceedings directly with the state's highest court seeking supervisory relief.
Motions for reconsideration in Hawaii appellate courts face strict standards. Under Rule 40(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, such motions must demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended controlling law or decisive facts. The rule is designed to prevent parties from simply relitigating issues already decided by the court.
The Supreme Court's terse order provided no additional reasoning beyond citing the applicable rule and stating that no points of law or fact had been overlooked. This suggests the justices viewed the reconsideration motion as lacking merit under the established legal standard.
Public records disputes involving private medical practices often arise when government agencies contract with or regulate healthcare providers. Such cases can involve requests for inspection reports, licensing documents, complaint records, or other materials that may be held by public agencies but concern private entities.
The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest has a history of pursuing transparency cases in Hawaii courts. The organization, affiliated with the Civil Beat news website, regularly challenges government secrecy and advocates for public access to information.
For the medical practice, the denial means the Supreme Court's previous ruling stands without further appellate review within the Hawaii court system. The respondents could potentially seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, though such petitions face extremely long odds given the high court's selective docket.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions between transparency advocates and private entities that interact with government agencies. While public records laws generally require disclosure of government documents, disputes frequently arise over the scope of disclosure when private parties are involved.
The procedural nature of Tuesday's order leaves many questions unanswered about the underlying dispute. The redacted case numbers in the court filing prevent easy access to the full record of proceedings that led to this motion for reconsideration.
With the reconsideration motion denied, attention may turn to whether the parties will seek further review or how any underlying public records obligations will be implemented. The order's finality suggests that whatever relief the Civil Beat Law Center sought in its original petition was at least partially granted in the court's previous ruling.
The case underscores the important role that state supreme courts play in resolving disputes over government transparency and public access to information, particularly when lower courts' handling of such matters is challenged by media organizations seeking to fulfill their watchdog function.