Office of Information Practices

U Memo 26-05
November 18, 2025
Reasonable Search for Records; Confidential Attorney-Client Communications

Requester made a record request to the Maui County Emergency Management Agency (EMA-M) for copies of letters mentioning a company named “Everbridge” or a product named “smart weather.”  EMA-M denied the request and stated that it did not maintain records responsive to the request.  Requester appealed the denial to OIP.  After receiving notice of the appeal, EMA-M performed another search for records and found seven emails that were responsive to the request in the email accounts of former EMA-M employees, but stated that these seven emails were all confidential attorney-client communications between EMA-M and its deputy corporation counsel (CORP CNSL-M). 

When an agency’s response to a record request states that no responsive record exists and that response is appealed, OIP assesses whether the agency’s search for a record was reasonable.  OIP found that as of EMA-M’s second search, EMA-M had performed a reasonable search of all mailboxes within EMA-M’s administrative control, and that EMA-M’s search would reasonably be expected to uncover all relevant documents.  Therefore, OIP concluded that EMA-M’s response that it does not maintain records responsive to the request other than the seven emails found in the second search was proper under the UIPA.  Additionally, to the extent that the record request implied that Requester was seeking records maintained by CORP CNSL-M, OIP concluded that EMA-M was not required to perform a search for records maintained by CORP CNSL-M. 

Under Rule 503 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence, a client has the privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client.  CORP CNSL-M serves as the chief legal advisor and legal representative of Maui County agencies such as EMA-M.  OIP found that the seven emails found in the second search were all communications between former EMA-M staff and EMA-M’s former assigned deputy corporation counsel, in which either an EMA-M staff member requested legal advice from the deputy corporation counsel or the deputy corporation counsel replied to the staff members’ requests for legal advice.  Therefore, OIP concluded that these seven emails may be withheld under section 92F-13(3) and (4), HRS, as confidential attorney-client communications.