RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Martin Kao re 82 MOTION for Return of Property Pursuant to 41(g)… — USA v. Kao (Dkt. 84)

Summary

The Government's Response to Motion for Return of Property Pursuant to Rule 41(G), with a certificate of service, filed January 26, 2023 as Document 84 in Cr. No. 21-00061 LEK (Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK), United States v. Martin Kao, U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. It responds to PacMar's motion (ECF No. 82) under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government states that it does not oppose an order to return a copy of the data extracted from the cellphone seized from Martin Kao, and notes that Mr. Kao objected to producing it. It asks the court to set a deadline for Mr. Kao to respond and to limit any order to a copy of that data.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

CLARE E. CONNORS #7936 
United States Attorney 
District of Hawaii 
 
CRAIG S. NOLAN 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Room 6100, PJKK Federal Building 
300 Ala Moana Blvd. 
Honolulu, Hawaii  96850 
Telephone:  (808) 541-2850 
Facsimile:  (808) 541-2958 
E-mail: Craig.Nolan@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
  
 
vs. 
 
MARTIN KAO, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
CR. NO. 21-00061 LEK 
 
GOVERNMENT’S 
RESPONSE TO MOTION 
FOR RETURN OF PROPERY 
PURSUANT TO RULE 
41(G); CERTIFICATE OF 
SERVICE 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR 
RETURN OF PROPERY PURSUANT TO RULE 41(G) 
 
The United States of America hereby responds to PacMar’s Motion for 
Return of Property Pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure (ECF No. 82).  PacMar’s Motion accurately describes and attaches the 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 84     Filed 01/26/23     Page 1 of 4  PageID.496

2 
 
relevant written communications of PacMar, Victor J. Bakke, Esq., counsel for Mr. 
Kao, and the government related to PacMar’s request.  As explained by PacMar, 
the government does not oppose an order to return a copy of the data extracted by 
the government from the cellphone seized from and used by Martin Kao, which 
PacMar states in its Motion is sufficient at this point in time.  Had Mr. Kao 
consented to such production, the government would have made the data available 
to PacMar without the need for a motion and order.  Because Mr. Kao objected to 
such production, he should have an opportunity to respond to PacMar’s Motion. 
Finally, the government notes that although Mr. Kao has entered guilty pleas 
to all charges in the instant wire fraud matter, he has not yet been sentenced, and 
he was recently indicted in this District for bank fraud in CR 23-00003 LEK.  The 
cellphone at issue constitutes and contains evidence in both prosecutions. 
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 84     Filed 01/26/23     Page 2 of 4  PageID.497

3 
 
Wherefore, the government respectfully requests (1) that the Court set a 
deadline for Mr. Kao to respond to PacMar’s Motion, and (2) if such Motion is 
granted after Mr. Kao’s opportunity to respond, that the Court limit the scope of 
the order to a production of a copy of the data extracted by the government from 
the cellphone. 
DATED:  January 26, 2023, at Honolulu, Hawaii. 
 
 
CLARE E. CONNORS 
 
 
United States Attorney 
 
 
District of Hawaii 
 
 
By:  /s/ Craig S. Nolan      
 
 
 
 
        Craig S. Nolan  
 
 
 
        Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 84     Filed 01/26/23     Page 3 of 4  PageID.498

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that, on the date and by the method of service noted below, 
the true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following at their last 
known address: 
Served Electronically by CM/ECF: 
 
Victor J. Bakke, Esq. 
 
Attorney for Defendant  
MARTIN KAO 
 
Served Electronically by CM/ECF:  
 
David M. Louie 
Jesse W. Schiel 
 
Attorneys for Movant 
PACMAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC 
f/k/a MARTIN DEFENSE GROUP, 
LLC f/k/a NAVATEK LLC 
 
DATED:  January 26, 2023, at Honolulu, Hawaii. 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Dalia Malig        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Attorney’s Office 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
District of Hawaii 
 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 84     Filed 01/26/23     Page 4 of 4  PageID.499

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.84.0.pdf

Size

125,021 bytes

SHA-256

1d03fff4655741b1e237ba8d27a24a46146e2f8c3b5cfc1a0bdb48f53084afbf

Our copy

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.84.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)