Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Choi Ito x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | Hawaii
Link
EO: On 7/23/2026, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a Status Report to inform the Court of the new deposition dates of Defendant Martin Kao (Defendant Kao). This Status Report was due on 8/01/2026. Plaintiff did not file this Status Report, and Plaintiff's counsel did not communicate with the Court about the deposition.
On 8/01/2026, Defendants Kao and SYWSE (collectively, Defendants) filed a 372 Status Report, stating that defense counsel offered deposition dates to Plaintiff's counsel and offered to host the deposition. Defendants reported that no response was received from Plaintiff's counsel either.
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to defense counsel and choose one of the dates identified in Defendants' 372 Status Report. Thereafter, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a Status Report with the Court indicating the scheduled dates of Defendant Kao's deposition. This Status Report shall be filed no later than 8/11/2026.
Further, because the trial date and associated deadlines in this case have been vacated, 357 Defendants' Motion to Take De Bene Esse Deposition of Martin Kao is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants may refile this motion after the new trial date and associated deadlines are set.
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE WES REBER PORTER) (jo)
1 - Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R)
EO: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REJECTING THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE
   On July 30, 2026, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant PacMar Technologies LLC, formerly known as Martin Defense Group, LLC ("PacMar") filed the Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Martin Kao's Trial Testimony. [Dkt. no. 370.] PacMar previously filed a motion in limine on March 3, 2026, [dkt. no. 312,] and three motions in limine on March 12, 2026, [dkt. nos. 321 to 323].    This Court issued an entering order on July 20, 2026 ("7/20 EO") that, inter alia, directed PacMar and Defendant Tiffany Jennifer Lam ("Lam") to file a joint statement with a proposed briefing schedule regarding various related to PacMar's claims against Lam following the deposition of Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant Martin Kao's ("Kao"), which was scheduled to take place on July 23 and July 24, 2026. [Dkt. no. 365 at PageID. 8285.] Pursuant to the 7/20 EO, PacMar and Lam filed a joint statement on July 31, 2026 ("7/31 Statement") informing this Court that Kao's deposition "has been continued and is not presently scheduled." [Dkt. no. 371 at 2 (citation omitted).] The 7/31 Statement also proposed a briefing schedule, which would be "triggered by receipt of the official transcript" for Kao's deposition. [Id. at 3-4.]    The trial date and all associated deadlines have been vacated, see Minute Order - EP: Status Conference, filed 3/17/26 (dkt. no. 327), at PageID.4879, and the trial date has not been rescheduled.    Because this Court has not reset the trial date or any associated deadline, including the deadline to file motions in limine, PacMar's motions in limine are DENIED. The denial of PacMar's motions in limine is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of renewed motions in limine after this Court resets the trial date and associated deadlines. This Court ORDERS the parties to refrain from filing any motions in limine until a new trial date and associated deadlines are set.    This Court REJECTS the 7/31 Statement's proposed briefing schedule. See 7/31 Statement at 3-4. PacMar and Lam are ORDERED to file a joint statement within two business days of receiving the official transcript for Kao's deposition. The joint statement should contain a briefing schedule that complies with the instructions set forth in the 7/20 EO. See 7/20 EO at PageID.8285-86. If Kao's deposition has not taken place by August 31, 2026, PacMar and Lam are ORDERED to file a joint statement by September 1, 2026 informing this Court of the status of the Kao's deposition and explaining why the parties have failed to take the deposition.    IT IS SO ORDERED.
(SENIOR JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI)(tl)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.