U Memo 14-11Posted on Jun 19, 2014 in Informal Opinions - UIPA Opinions
U Memo 14-11
June 19, 2014
[Note: This opinion was reconsidered and clarified in U Memo 15-3.]
Requester sought a decision as to whether the Judiciary must disclose the birthdates of judges, and if so, whether the Judiciary must disclose the exact date of birth or if it is sufficient to disclose the month and year of each judge’s birth. Requester further asked whether there is a specific age that triggers the Judiciary’s obligation to disclose a judge’s birthdate.
The OIP found that the Judiciary must disclose a judge’s exact date of birth when responding to a UIPA request for this government record because no UIPA exceptions to disclosure apply. Specifically, the UIPA’s “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” exception does not apply to the judge’s birthdate because a judge’s significant privacy interest in his or her birthdate is outweighed by the greater public interest in disclosure. The public has a great interest in this record because it sheds light upon the Judiciary’s compliance with Hawaii State Constitution’s mandate that every judge must be retired upon attaining the age of seventy years old.