ANDREW KINGMAN, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ATLANTIS SUBMARINES HAWAI‘I, LLC, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. 

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW KINGMAN:
     Joachim P. Cox and Randall C. Whattoff of Cox Fricke LLP and Andrew R. Gould of Hicks Johnson PLLC, admitted pro hac vice, J. Kyle Findley, Adam Lewis, and John G. Grinnan, Jr. of Arnold & Itkin LLP, admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee ATLANTIS SUBMARINES HAWAI‘I, LLC:
     Normand R. Lezy, Michael J. Nakano, Shawn L.M. Benton, and Gregory Y.P. Tom of Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Griffin & Hansen, LLP, and Deirdre Marie-Iha and Kellie K.L. Wong of Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Steven R. Nichols due to a vacancy, filed 08/10/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/24/26.

NOTE: Amended Memo of Setting dated 10/01/26 amended for the purpose of:
     -Adding Attorneys Deirdre Marie-Iha and Kellie K.L. Wong. Notice of Appearance filed 09/21/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nichols assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Andrew Kingman sued his employer Atlantis Submarines Hawai‘i. This appeal arises from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s discovery sanction against Kingman for failing to appear at his court-ordered deposition. The sanction barred Kingman from entering any evidence originating with him. Shortly after, the circuit court entered summary judgment against him.

Kingman appealed the sanctions order. He argued the circuit court’s order was too severe, and that the court ruled on an issue not presented to it. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order. It found the circuit court acted within its discretion to impose the order.

This court accepted certiorari on:

     (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed the sanction, and

     (2) whether this court should adopt the principle of party presentation.