{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff176\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f176\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR;}{\f185\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f189\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f190\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f191\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f192\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f193\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{\*\cs16 \additive 
\scaps\fs17 GCA Header;}{\*\cs17 \additive \scaps\fs17 GCA Footer;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}
{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0
{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'03);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'04);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'05);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0
\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06);}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'07);}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname ParaNumbers2;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3369027
\rsid9508377\rsid13837301\rsid16334655}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr16\min9}{\version3}{\edmins3}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords1839}
{\nofchars10486}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws12301}{\vern16391}}\margl2160\margr2160\margt2606\margb2606 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot16334655 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16334655 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16334655 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16334655 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16334655 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery2606\footery2606\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid16334655\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\b\scaps\fs17\insrsid16334655 
People vs. Superior Court vs. Quint, 1997 Guam 7, (Opinion)
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs22\insrsid16334655 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs22\insrsid16334655 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 
\f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\*\bkmkstart QuickMark}{\*\bkmkend QuickMark}IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par TERRITORY OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par Petitioner,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 vs.}{\f0\insrsid16334655 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par Respondent,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 vs.}{\f0\insrsid16334655 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 JOSEPH ALEJO QUINT}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par Real Party in Interest.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Case No. WRM97-001
\par Filed: May 13, 1997}{\f0\insrsid16334655 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Cite as: 1997 Guam 7
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Argued and Submitted on March 12, 1997
\par Agana, Guam}{\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Attorney for the Petitioner}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par GERAD EGAN, Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General, Prosecution Division
\par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Building
\par 120 West O\rquote Brien Drive
\par Agana, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Attorney for the Real Party in Interest}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA, JR., ESQ.
\par Arriola, Cowan & Arriola
\par 259 Martyr Street, Suite 201
\par P.O. Box X, Agana, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Attorney for Respondent}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par DONNA M. CRUZ, Staff Attorney
\par Superior Court of Guam
\par Judicial Center Building
\par 120 West O\rquote Brien Drive
\par Agana, Guam 96910}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 __________________________}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 OPINION}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS, and JOSE LEON GUERRERO}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\b\fs22\super\insrsid16334655 
\chftn }{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 Part time.}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 , Associate Justices. 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 SIGUENZA, C.J.:
\par }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
The People of the Territory of Guam petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate a discovery order requiring disclosure of documents concerning an ongoing homicide investigation. Both real party in interest and respondent
 oppose the petition.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
The facts and circumstances of this case, when applied to the standards under which this Court issues mandamus relief, lead us to conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par \tab }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL \tab HISTORY}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [1]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab The real party in interest, Joseph Quint, filed a written Motion for Discovery on January 16, 1997. Quint}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
s motion requested several items of discovery from petitioner and specifically listed Guam police report #96-16587. The subject matter of this particular report is an ongoing homicide investigation consisting of approximately 2,000 pages of documents. Pet
itioner did not file a written response objecting to the requested items.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [2]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
Oral argument on the motion was heard on February 13, 1997 and later on February 19, 1997. Initially, the petitioner agreed to provide all of the requested items. However, after 
counsel for Quint voluntarily disclosed the subject matter of the police report, the petitioner retreated from this position and opposed divulging the information.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [3]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab In support of nondisclosure
, the petitioner initially articulated two different arguments. First, petitioner argued that Quint was not entitled to the documents in question because they were not relevant to his case. Second, according to the petitioner, the ongoing homicide investi
gation would be jeopardized by disclosure. Petitioner later agreed, however, that some of these documents could be relevant to defendant}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s case. During the discussions of these issues, petitioner suggested that the court conduct an in camera review of the documents to verify his assertions.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [4]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
The trial court addressed these concerns and found that Quint had made a showing that the documents were material to his defense and that the request was reasonable. In add
ition, given this finding, the court stated that petitioner had not provided specific reasons why these items should not be turned over. The trial court consequently granted the motion for discovery and ordered the 2,000 pages turned over by March 6, 1997
.
 Addressing the risk to the investigation, the trial court imposed a personal gag order on Quint and his counsel requiring that they not disclose information gained from the discovery. The court also declined to conduct an in camera review of the document
s at that time. Instead, the court gave the petitioner time to review the documents and submit parts of the police report, under seal, with specific objections as to disclosure. Neither sealed documents nor objections were submitted.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [5]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab An ex-parte hearin
g was held on March 5, 1997. The petitioner asked the court to stay its previously issued discovery order pending the forthcoming writ. The court denied the request because the petitioner had not exhausted his available remedies. The court explained that 
t
he opportunity for in camera inspection previously made available to the petitioner had not yet been exercised. The court further explained that its prerequisite to in camera review, the submission of sealed documents accompanied by specific written objec
t
ions, had not been complied with. Because the petitioner asserted that the opportunity for in camera review was specifically precluded at the previous hearing, the court then clarified its ruling. The petitioner was specifically advised that in camera rev
iew was an option that could still be exercised. This option was not pursued. Instead, the petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking relief from the lower court\rquote s discovery order.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [6]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab The Court heard oral argument on this matter on March 12, 1997. Both real party in interest and the respondent objected to petitioner}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
s reply brief based on its untimely filing. In addition, respondent objected as it had not been served with the documents. Petitioner did not dispute these objections.
\par 
\par \tab }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 II. DISCUSSION}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [7]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab When a petition for a writ of mandamus comes before the Court, we must first decide whether mandamus relief would either be appropriate or necessary. This Court previous
ly described mandamus relief as an extraordinary remedy that would be used in extreme situations. }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Guam Publications, Inc. v. Superior Court of Guam v. People and Bruneman,}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
 1996 Guam 6, }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 10. We will employ the writ in order to }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Id.}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
 (citations omitted). We require the petitioning party to bear the burden of justifying the issuance of a writ. }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Kerr v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California,}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [8]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab Issuance of a writ of mandamus is a matter of discretion. 7 GCA }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 31401; }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 See also Kerr}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
, 426 U.S. at 403. To guide the exercise of our discretion, we balance, if applicable, the following factors: 1) Whether the pa
rty seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to attain the desired relief; 2) Whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; 3) Whether the court}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; 4) Whether the court}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the rules; and 5) Whether the court}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law or first impression. }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
Guam Publications,}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  1996 Guam 6, }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
 11. These factors, however, will not relieve us of our own reasoned and independent analysis of the issues. }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 In re Cement Antitrust Litigation,}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
 688 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, this framework of factors is a starting point in our determination of the propriety of mandamus relief. }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 Id.}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [9]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
Application of the factors to the facts of this case supports denial of writ relief. Of the five factors, four favor denial. In addition, consideration of other compelling circumstances leads us to this same conclusion.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [10]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab In this particular case, the first, second, and third factors are closely related and support the petition}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s denial. Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant in camera review of documents mandated by 8 GCA }{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 70.35(a).}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi180\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx180\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\b\fs22\super\insrsid16334655 \chftn }{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 Petitioner also argues that the court disregarded the provisions of 8 G.C.A. }{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 
70.15 by not placing the burden upon the defendant to show materiality as to the matters requested. For several different reasons, this argument is without merit. First, the record indicates that defense counsel argued several different points in support 
of his need for the documents. The court apparently accepted these arguments. Second, the record is replete with the petitioner}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{
\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 s admissions that some of the documents could be discoverable by the defendant. Finally, petitioner asked the lower court to conduct an in camera review and then decide which materials should be turned over. Petitioner}{
\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 s framing of this particular request implicitly admits that documents were discoverable.}}}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  The argument fails based on two clear and independent grounds. First, Guam}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s statutory provision gives the trial court discretion to decide whether to conduct an in camera review. The language of the provision states:
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li432\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin432\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 In Camera Matters.}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  (a) Upon request of any person, the court }{\i\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
may}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  permit any showing of cause for denial or regulation of disclosures, or portion of such showing to be made in camera.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par 8 GCA }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 70.35(a)(emphasis added).
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [11]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab Chapter 5 of Guam Code Annotated provides both rules of construction and definitions that govern the construction of Guam}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s criminal procedure code. The term }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 may}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
 is specifically addressed within these provisions and is defined as }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 permissive.}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  8 GCA }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 5.23. The same statute alternatively defines the term }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 shall}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  to mean }{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 mandatory.}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  8 GCA }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 5.23. With these definitions in mind, granting a request for in camera review, pursuant to 8 GCA }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 70.35(a), clearly is a discretionary act of the court. Contrary to petitioner\rquote s argument, nothing in the language of the statute would mandate a court to conduct such a review.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [12]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab Secondly, petitioner}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
s argument fails because the lower court, in fact, granted the request for in camera review. The record reveals that petitioner initially requested that the lower court conduct this type of review. The lower court declined the request, at that particular 
time, based on a lack of knowledge and guidance as to the material in question; not simply, as petitioner suggests, that the court }{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}
{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 did not like in camera proceedings.}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  
The record reveals that the court}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
s order did not preclude the possibility of an in camera review. The court announced that petitioner could submit portions of the documents to her under seal for review. The cour
t further required specific objections accompany the sealed documents. Otherwise, all documents were to be turned over to defendant. This option was never utilized.}{\f0\insrsid3369027 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [13]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab The petitioner disputes this assertion by maintaining that the court}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s only order was that the documents be turned over by March 6, 1997. Petitioner further asserts in camera review was denied outright. While we agree that the lower court}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
s ruling at the February 19, 1997 hearing could have been more clear, any confusion surrounding the order was clarified at the hearing held on March 5, 1997. In clear and unambiguous terms, the petitioner was 
again advised of the option for in camera review. Petitioner was also advised that the opportunity to submit the items was still a viable option.}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi180\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\b\fs22\super\insrsid16334655 \chftn }{
\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 This Court demands candid and complete representations of the facts by litigants who appear before us, no matter how unfavorable those facts may be to their case. We are concerned with petitioner}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 s representations of the facts and circumstances surrounding the hearings below. For example, in light of the }{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 inadequate relief}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{
\b\fs20\insrsid16334655  factor set out in }{\b\i\fs20\insrsid16334655 Guam Publications,}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655  this Court fails to comprehend how discussions ta
king place at the March 5, 1997 ex-parte hearing were omitted from the petition. At that hearing, the lower court made clear that in camera review was still available to petitioner. We also note the petitioner}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 s characterization of the lower court}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{
\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 s statement regarding in camera reviews. Although the lower court judge stated that she disliked in camera proceedings, when viewed in context of the discussions, the judge}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid16334655 s position was based on a lack of knowledge and guidance as to materials in front of her.}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027  Thus, the record does not support petitioner}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s claim of error. Adequate means to
 obtain relief existed at the trial level. Petitioner failed to take advantage of this relief even after the court}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s reminder. Clearly, the court committed no error and any damage suffered by the petitioner is a 
result of its own inaction. Consequently, factors one, two, and three all support denying the petition for writ of mandamus.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [14]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
Nor does the fourth factor, pertaining to oft-repeated errors or persistent disregard for the rules, support issuance of the writ. Review of the petition indicates only petitioner}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s subjective belief that the perceived error may occur often.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [15]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
In contrast, the fifth factor supports issuance of the writ. We acknowledge that most issues coming before us, for a time, will generally be of first impression. We thus focus on discovery matters generally and their importance to all cases.
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [16]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
In addition to the above factors, the procedural history of this case influences our decision. The record reveals that petitioner has not been diligent in this matter. First, no opposition was filed
 in response to the written motion for discovery. Second, at oral argument, petitioner initially agreed to provide the discovery. An objection was raised only after opposing counsel}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s disclosures. Third, petition
er admittedly failed to review the discovery materials at issue. It is apparent that petitioner could not adequately help the court make a decision in support of nondisclosure. Fourth, by not submitting documents under seal with objections, petitioner fai
led to take advantage of the relief offered by the court. Finally, we note that petitioner}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
s lack of diligence has also touched this Court. Petitioner, if he chose to do so, was to file a response to the oppositio
ns by March 11, 1997. This deadline was missed and the response filed one day late. In addition, the document was not served on the respondent. Consequently, we do not consider petitioner}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 s response to the oppositions.
\par 
\par \tab }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 III. CONCLUSION}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 [17]}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 \tab 
Given the limited nature of mandamus relief, the application of the above factors, and the other considerations we deemed important, denial of the writ is the appropriate course of acti
on. The record neither supports nor justifies issuance of such extraordinary relief.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 PETER C. SIGUENZA}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par Chief Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 JANET HEALY WEEKS}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 JOSE LEON GUERRERO}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3369027 {\b\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 ________}{\f0\insrsid16334655\charrsid3369027 
\par }}