Background
Hye Ja Choi filed a slip-and-fall personal injury lawsuit against her condominium association in November 2022, claiming she was injured in the building’s lobby. She sought damages for medical expenses and lost wages. The case was initially referred to court-annexed arbitration but was removed at the defendant’s request in January 2024.
In May 2023, the defendant served discovery requests seeking ten years of Choi’s medical records and five years of employment history. Choi objected, asserting that this information was irrelevant, private, and burdensome. She refused to provide the requested information, particularly the employment records, arguing she was unemployed at the time of the incident.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to compel, explaining that such discovery is standard in personal injury and premises liability cases, and that the defendant was entitled to evaluate the factual bases for Choi’s injury causation, medical damages, and lost-wage claims. The court ordered Choi to comply and imposed $350 in sanctions. When Choi failed to comply, the defendant moved to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the discovery requests were clearly relevant under Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1)(A). The defendant was entitled to examine whether Choi’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence (not another source), whether her medical expenses resulted from the incident (not another cause), and whether she could have earned the wages she claimed. The court noted that the exact discovery requests matched standard discovery forms published by the First Circuit Court for slip-and-fall cases.
The court rejected Choi’s arguments that the discovery was irrelevant or improper. It found the trial court properly analyzed the five factors for sanctions under the Aloha Unlimited test and determined that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for Choi’s clear refusal to comply with the discovery order. The court also rejected Choi’s allegations of judicial misconduct, finding them either factually unsupported or unrelated to the instant case.
Key Takeaways
- In personal injury litigation, defendants may obtain discovery of a plaintiff’s medical records for up to ten years prior to the incident and employment records for up to five years prior to the incident to evaluate causation and damages.
- Such discovery requests are presumptively relevant and standard in slip-and-fall and premises liability cases under Hawaii procedure.
- A plaintiff cannot refuse discovery merely by asserting that the information is private or unrelated to the case; relevance is determined by the court under the broad discovery rules.
- Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction for willful refusal to comply with a discovery order after being given a clear opportunity to comply.
Why It Matters
This decision provides clear guidance that Hawaii courts will enforce broad discovery in personal injury cases and will not tolerate unwarranted refusals based on a plaintiff’s subjective privacy concerns. Defendants in slip-and-fall and premises liability cases can rely on obtaining the full scope of discovery needed to evaluate whether the plaintiff’s injuries are actually caused by the defendant’s alleged negligence and whether the claimed damages are supported by the evidence.
The decision also reinforces that discovery sanctions—including case dismissal—are available remedies for willful discovery abuse. Plaintiffs who refuse discovery orders without legal justification risk losing their right to pursue their claims entirely, particularly when the trial court provides clear notice and an opportunity to comply.