U Memo 11-15Posted on Apr 15, 2011 in Informal Opinions - UIPA Opinions
U Memo 11-15
April 15, 2011
Requester asked whether the University of Hawaii (UH) properly denied Requester’s request for disclosure of attorneys’ invoices to UH (Invoices) under part II of the UIPA.
OIP found that UH must disclose the Invoices after redacting information that is protected under one or more of the UIPA exceptions. Specifically, UH may redact information revealing privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work-product that are exempt under one or more UIPA exceptions, and may also redact individually identifiable information about employees that falls under the UIPA’s “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” exception.