TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings MOTION HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION OWED TO PACMAR,… — USA v. Kao (Dkt. 189)

Summary

Transcript of Proceedings, Document 189, filed 03/02/26, of the April 30, 2025 motion hearing to determine the amount of restitution owed to PacMar, f/k/a Navatek, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3664(d)(5), in Criminal No. 21-00061LEK, United States v. Martin Kao, before the Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi. Craig S. Nolan appears for the government and Randall K. Hironaka for Kao, who is not present. Judge Kobayashi says her inclination is that the arbitration award does not prevent restitution for attorney's fees from responding to federal subpoenas, but that more than 50 percent of the fee entries she reviewed have nothing to do with that. Nolan says the total is about $850,000. At the end, the court says its minutes will serve as the order denying without prejudice to refiling, with no deadline.

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
(1) MARTIN KAO,
Defendant. 
                             
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)  
CRIMINAL NO. 21-00061LEK 
Honolulu, Hawaii 
April 30, 2025
MOTION HEARING TO DETERMINE 
 THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION  
 OWED TO PACMAR, F/K/A 
 NAVATEK, PURSUANT TO 18  
 U.S.C. SECTION 3664(d)(5) 
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: 
For the Defendant: 
Official Court 
Reporter: 
CRAIG S. NOLAN, ESQ. 
Office of the United States Attorney
PJKK Federal Building 
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 6100 
Honolulu, Hawaii  96850 
RANDALL K. HIRONAKA, ESQ. 
Miyoshi & Hironaka, LLLC
City Financial Tower 
201 Merchant Street, Suite 2240 
Honolulu, Hawaii   96813 
Cynthia Fazio, RMR, CRR, CRC 
United States District Court 
300 Ala Moana Blvd., C-270
Honolulu, Hawaii  96850 
Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript produced 
with computer-aided transcription (CAT). 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 1 of 25  PageID.2262

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2025                            10:02 A.M. 
THE COURTROOM MANAGER:  Criminal Number 21-00061LEK, 
United States of America versus Martin Kao.  This case has been 
called for a hearing to determine the amount owed to PacMar, 
f/k/a Navatek.
Counsel, please make your appearances for the record. 
MR. NOLAN:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Craig Nolan for 
the government.  Also present is probation officer Sara 
Nieling. 
THE COURT:  All right, good morning to you both.  
Mr. Hironaka. 
MR. HIRONAKA:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Randy 
Hironaka on behalf of Martin Kao.  Your Honor, he's not 
present.  I actually did not look up his rights with respect to 
being present at a restitution hearing, but I'm willing to 
waive his presence if it's okay with Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Yes, I think we should waive his presence. 
MR. HIRONAKA:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  All right.  You may be seated.  
All right.  I've had an opportunity to review through 
the submissions, and particularly to take a look at United 
States versus Bright, which is 353 F.3d 1114, a 2004 Ninth 
Circuit case.  I also took a look at, which is, I thought, was 
a very good discussion of the Bright case, United States of 
America versus Williams, which is a District of Oregon case by 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 2 of 25  PageID.2263

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Judge Anna Brown; it's found at 2009 Westlaw 10691088.  
And it's my inclination that just because there was an 
arbitration and there was an arbitration award, which I just 
need confirmation that it has not yet been paid, that fact does 
not prevent me from awarding restitution.  So I'm inclined to 
say that PacMar can get restitution for attorney's fees that 
they expended as a result of federal subpoenas, et cetera.  
The problem is that I've looked through the submission 
of all of the attorney's fees and, I mean, I haven't gone 
through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I would say the 
majority, I don't know, I can't give a number, but more than 
50 percent, have nothing to do with that and so should not be 
included in a restitution award.  And I've looked at 
Ms. Nieling's e-mail and I agree with her, I don't think it's 
Probation's role to go through all these attorneys' bills and 
figure out how much was spent in responding to the federal 
investigation in the District of Hawaii. 
Now, I know I saw several entries that had to do with 
responding to the federal prosecution in the District of 
Columbia, which is a separate case from this and for which I 
did not sentence him.  So I don't think it's appropriate for me 
to order restitution having to do anything with the prosecution 
in the District of Columbia.  I would leave it to that 
sentencing judge if that's appropriate. 
There are other things that had to do with, I guess, 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 3 of 25  PageID.2264

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
working with federal agencies.  I guess there's a concern that 
there is going to be a problem with regard to, you know, future 
business and so forth.  That, again, you know, strikes me as 
something that would not be part of restitution, that that was 
a voluntary aspect of the business and those who could make 
those decisions for the business to try to ameliorate any of 
the damage that was done to Mr. -- done by Mr. Kao to the 
reputation of PacMar.  Again, they could get that in 
arbitration.  I don't think that's part of restitution.  
So, those are my thoughts after reviewing everything.  
I certainly don't want to go through all of these attorney's 
fees and so forth.  I would place that on the government, but 
not really Mr. Nolan, but if PacMar's -- PacMar and their 
attorneys wish to have that in a restitution award, then they 
need to go through it and then provide me with the 
documentation and point out why that's related to the District 
of Hawaii prosecution, and the expense and time that was spent 
in responding to government requests or what have you.  
For instance, I would just point out, I don't mean to 
beat a dead horse here, but this is Invoice Number 101419, 
Exhibit B at Page 65, and there are several entries, one of 
which it says on December 31, 2020, an entry for P. Burton, 
confer with D. Drunk -- I'm sorry, Brunk, B-R-U-N-K, exchanges 
and conferences with counsel and client on numerous issues, 
conference with the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney's Office 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 4 of 25  PageID.2265

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
and Department of Justice Public Integrity Section attorneys 
and draft report regarding the same. 
That to me indicates two things.  One, that had to do 
with the District of Columbia prosecution, and two, I can't 
tell what exchanges and conferences with counsel and client on 
numerous issues has to do. 
So I wouldn't award that as restitution because it's 
not related to responding to the government's request, or if 
they were responding and corresponding with Mr. Hironaka 
regarding the District of Hawaii, that would be part of, I 
think, the restitution.  But general entries such as review 
documents for privilege, prepare electronic documents for 
attorney review and coding, I couldn't in good conscience award 
that as restitution because I don't know what that was in 
reference to.  
I did see a couple of entries that talked about 
responding to subpoena requests and so forth.  Those, where 
it's documented, had to do with the District of Hawaii 
prosecution, I think those would be part of what I would look 
upon as being part of the restitution.  
But I really can't tell from the majority of the 
entries what that is related to with regard to being qualified 
to be awarded as restitution. 
Okay.  So that's my inclination.  If I follow my 
inclination, what I would do is deny without prejudice PacMar's 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 5 of 25  PageID.2266

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
restitution request and permit a refiling with documentation 
supporting a specific amount and with documentation that 
supports that those attorney's fees and services were expended 
because of the District of Hawaii prosecution and responded to 
subpoenas, requests by the government, meetings with the 
government, possibly meetings with defense counsel related to 
the District of Hawaii prosecution.  That as PacMar's the 
victim and they had to expend that, makes sense to me.  
But without that kind of specificity and 
documentation, I really can't say that it meets the 
requirements for restitution, i.e., a loss under the statute 
related to the criminal activity for which Mr. Kao has been 
convicted. 
So, I want to hear your thoughts with regard to the 
same.  And I'll go around the room and have Mr. Nolan, 
Mr. Hironaka and then Ms. Nieling sort of weigh in.  Mr. Nolan?  
MR. NOLAN:  Yes, and I certainly understand the 
Court's thoughts on this.  Can I get a minute?  
THE COURT:  Sure. 
MR. NOLAN:  So one option here --
THE COURT:  Yeah. 
MR. NOLAN:  -- PacMar, as I understand it, went 
through a process to determine which parts of the bills are 
related to the subpoena responses and which are not. 
THE COURT:  Okay. 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 6 of 25  PageID.2267

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
MR. NOLAN:  And they can explain that process.  And I 
just want to see, now that PacMar through its CEO and through 
its attorney have heard the Court's thoughts on what they've 
provided to the government, the probation office and the Court, 
I want to just ask them kind of what their thinking is.  
Because ultimately really the burden here, although it comes 
through the government's request, is -- is on PacMar, you know, 
a sophisticated victim with lots of lawyers, right?  So if I 
can get 30 seconds. 
THE COURT:  Absolutely.  No, I mean I don't mean to 
rush you and then maybe you want to have -- confer and then let 
Ms. Cortez know when you're ready and I can come back in.  And, 
you know, if you want to fold Ms. Nieling in the discussion as 
well because she's going to review it as well and possibly make 
a recommendation to the Court.  
It's just that whole amount -- what is it, that 
amazing amount -- 834,000. 
MR. NOLAN:  Yeah, it's about $850,000, Your Honor.  
Now, I will tell you that it was hundreds of thousands of 
documents that came my way. 
THE COURT:  Yes. 
MR. NOLAN:  But -- and let me just ask, so that PacMar 
maybe further understands, so if we were just to look at 
Exhibit B, Page 65. 
THE COURT:  Yes. 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 7 of 25  PageID.2268

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
MR. NOLAN:  Just because you pointed that out. 
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. NOLAN:  And there's a yellow and a purple.  Yellow 
means included, right?  
So, what you would hear from the witness is that if 
it's in yellow, it's included in the total that's been 
presented to the Court, because it's Hawaii, the Hawaii 
investigation.  
If it's in, I'll call it purple, but maybe it's blue, 
including the -- the entry you remarked on, that was excluded 
from the ultimate total numbers because it was, as the Court 
pointed out, related to D.C.  
So there is that level of specificity in the sense 
that a witness would get on the stand, I think maybe it's in 
the declaration, and say, Items marked in yellow were included 
in the total; items marked in blue or purple were not.  There 
are some items that are not highlighted and they are neither.  
So they're not included.  So it's only yellow items. 
So what I am wondering, from the Court's perspective, 
is essentially you have an assertion by PacMar that the yellow 
entries represent expenditures that were incurred in response 
to the grand jury subpoenas here.  And everything else is 
excluded in the totals presented.  So you have that level of 
detail. 
THE COURT:  Well, you do, but look on Page 61, the 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 8 of 25  PageID.2269

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
first entry, 12/4/2020 by J. Hagen, 5 hours .10, review files 
received from client regarding credit card charges.  Create 
chart regarding credit card charges by client.  Review ledger 
received from client.  E-mail correspondence regarding document 
collection.  E-mail correspondence with Lori McMullen, Clifford 
Chen regarding additional documents.  Review documents received 
from client for privilege.  
Yeah, I don't know how that responds to any of the 
subpoenas from the government or assisting the government.  It 
may, but if I look at that entry I would deny it.  
Now, I don't want to go through each of these entries 
and figure out what it is.  You know what I'm saying?  So I 
just offer that as an example. 
MR. NOLAN:  So, right, and I -- and I knew that of 
course we had entries like that, that are general in nature.  
They don't even mention a subpoena, right?  
THE COURT:  Right. 
MR. NOLAN:  So did the Court -- does the Court have in 
its contemplation, for entries like that, that are not facially 
obvious as included, as a response to a grand jury subpoena, is 
there some -- what level of detail or documentation are you 
asking for from PacMar?  Would you want -- would you want 
essentially a long declaration that addresses each entry, which 
of course there must be, I'm going to say hundreds, there could 
be more.  Are you expecting that there would be some sort of 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 9 of 25  PageID.2270

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
paper documentation on top of that?  Because otherwise 
essentially what they're offering is a general assertion that 
items in yellow were related to their subpoena response to us. 
THE COURT:  Right.  
MR. NOLAN:  So it would be informative for them to 
know kind of what is the -- the backup the Court thinks it 
would need or want to see to make a determination. 
THE COURT:  So, I guess starting from the large and 
going to the small.  No, it's not enough to just highlight what 
it is because I question so many of these that are highlighted 
in yellow.  For instance, 12/8/2020, P. Burton, draft document 
request for M. Hunsaker.  What's that have to do with 
responding to the government?  I don't know.
MR. NOLAN:  Sure.
THE COURT:  Confer with counsel for individual T. Lam.  
Again, I don't know.  
Conference with V. Woo.  Numerous exchanges with team 
and Hawaiian counsel on numerous issues regarding production 
and investigation, including review of draft confidentiality 
order.  
Who drafts a confidentiality order when responding to 
a subpoena from the federal government?  Maybe.  I don't know.  
It doesn't seem like it's related. 
Review draft Navy submission document and comment on 
the same.  
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 10 of 25  PageID.2271

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
What's the Navy doing with the subpoenas?  I don't 
know. 
MR. NOLAN:  Right. 
THE COURT:  I don't see the -- there has to be 
something in the -- the description that ties it to, you 
know -- for instance, telephone call with C. Nolan.  Okay, I 
get that.  I know that's you.  You were on the case.  
Review subpoena, conference with government attorneys 
regarding scope.  Review documents to be produced pursuant to 
subpoena for attorney-client privilege.  
Okay.  I see that, but -- and part of it is that it's, 
you know, there's a lot packed in -- in the billing, I think, 
and it hasn't been separated because these are highlighted.  
Like, the whole 3 hours, 3.10 is, you know, highlighted as 
having to do with response to the subpoena.  One, I don't see 
it, and two, I'm pretty sure that had to do with work for other 
things for PacMar and not with the District of Hawaii 
prosecution. 
So, I guess what I would say is, in a redo, if you are 
going to claim this, then for each of those you have to have 
somebody explain in some sort of format, like you want to do 
it -- an affidavit.  I mean that's a lot for me to review.  
It's almost like reviewing each of the entries.  
MR. NOLAN:  Yes.
THE COURT:  But someone saying, Well, when we reviewed 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 11 of 25  PageID.2272

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
for attorney-client privilege, it had to do with the documents 
that were responding to the government's subpoena in the 
District of Hawaii case.  
I suspect that when they go back, if they want it, 
they go back through all of this, that a majority of what has 
been highlighted in yellow will either be reduced or withdrawn.  
I mean, so, you know, when you talk about doing work 
for the internal investigation, well, I don't know how that's 
related to the government's investigation. 
MR. NOLAN:  Right. 
THE COURT:  So those are the kind of questions that I 
-- I have to see a direct connection to the District of Hawaii 
prosecution in the sense that because the government was 
prosecuting Mr. Kao, that created the victim, a responsibility 
and obligation, right, to expend time and attorney's fees in 
seeking these documents, producing them to the government.  And 
so I think those are rightly characterized as restitution.  And 
the fact that they got this huge arbitration award but haven't 
yet received it, then that's going to be an offset at a later 
time. 
MR. NOLAN:  Sure. 
THE COURT:  But that's not for me to decide and, you 
know, we're not involved with that.  
So, I'm pretty sure under the Bright case that I can 
award restitution.  So then the more -- the smaller, more 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 12 of 25  PageID.2273

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
direct point is, I can only order restitution for any injuries 
to the victim as a result of, you know, Mr. Kao's wrongdoing in 
the District of Hawaii case.  
MR. NOLAN:  Right.  Right.  It's certainly a narrower 
measure of damages, if you will, than in their civil disputes 
with Mr. Kao.  
Yeah, I really -- I mean, I think the government's of 
the same view.  I wanted PacMar to hear your thoughts on what 
you might want to see with respect to entries that would then 
demonstrate to you that any particular entry or part of an 
entry is compensable under that standard. 
THE COURT:  Yeah. 
MR. NOLAN:  So that's helpful.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  So I guess we can do two things.  One, I 
would highly recommend they take a look at the local rules 
having to do with applications for attorney's fees when we have 
to apply the lodestar analysis, just because it gives you kind 
of categories that we do award as attorney's fees and we don't.  
Not that I would apply it strictly to this, but I think it's a 
good guideline. 
Secondly, after they go through all of this, one 
aspect of it is that we could ask the magistrate judge or 
somebody to sit down with them and kind of help them go on a -- 
not a line by line, but you know what I'm saying, with regard 
to it and just have a general idea.  So before they submit it 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 13 of 25  PageID.2274

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
to me, that somebody can go over it with them generally.  
I would offer to do it myself.  The only problem is 
I'll be the ultimate decision-maker on this and I don't want it 
to be kind of like I have these ex parte discussions and then 
we came up with this order.  So that's the only thing I think 
why I would offer the sacrificial lamb of the magistrate judge.  
But -- because it might be a good sounding board, right?  
MR. NOLAN:  Sure. 
THE COURT:  With regard to that.  But I just offer 
that as a thought.  I'm not saying I'm going to require that. 
MR. NOLAN:  Okay.  All right.  That's helpful.  Thank 
you. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Do you want to have a little 
discussion -- not little.  Do you want to have a discussion?  
And then, Mr. Hironaka, I'd love to hear your 
thoughts. 
MR. HIRONAKA:  No.  Yeah, so I just -- before they 
have a discussion so we don't keep going back and forth, just a 
few things, Your Honor.  
I don't necessarily mind litigating this by paper.  
What I kind of hear you saying, but I don't want to speak for 
you, is, I think maybe this needs to be similar to like a 
privilege log, and I have no desire to go through it.  But if 
it's got to be done, it's got to be done, because there's 
literally, as Mr. Nolan said, there's hundreds of entries.  
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 14 of 25  PageID.2275

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
So I think what PacMar's attorneys need to do is to 
basically go through each one and then list why it's 
compensable.  And so -- and then I would respond, I guess.  
But there's a couple issues related to that that's 
just, you know, factually.  So I don't know if they can be 
asked about this as well.  But it occurs to me that, I think 
Your Honor kind of needs to know what the grand jury subpoenas 
were asking for in the first place.  And so I get that that's 
secret.  I've spoken with Mr. Nolan about it.  I know it wasn't 
part of discovery.  But I think that that basic universe needs 
to be established.  
And then I'm guessing that, and maybe we disagree on 
this, but I'm guessing the response for most of these entries 
is going to have to do with scrubbing the documents for 
privilege, which I then had a short conversation with 
Ms. Nieling about this morning and my position would be that 
that's not necessarily something that's compensable as 
restitution.  
But again, I haven't looked at these cases that you 
cited to, so maybe they are, maybe they aren't. 
THE COURT:  Yeah, I mean those cases actually didn't 
talk about what specifically -- they just talked about, mostly 
it was an issue that actually doesn't have to do with the issue 
before us.  But one point, though, that runs through Bright is 
just because that there's insurance, for instance, out there, 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 15 of 25  PageID.2276

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
that will compensate the victim, it doesn't mean you can't 
order restitution.  It just means later on when they get the 
insurance they get an offset.  So if they get a hundred 
thousand dollars in restitution and then the insurance policy 
covers their business loss for 250,000, they don't get the 
hundred thousand restitution plus the 250 from the insurance 
coverage.  There is an offset there for the -- and the 
insurance company will then pay over 150,000. 
MR. HIRONAKA:  Right.  And with respect to my 
collateral estoppel argument, I -- I -- you know, I read the 
submission, the response by the government, and I agree that, 
you know, we're probably not really in that realm anymore.  So 
we're really just focused on the -- 
THE COURT:  Right, what's compensable.  Right.  
MR. HIRONAKA:  Right.
THE COURT:  So it doesn't really give me guidance with 
regard to that.  
I hear what your argument is, is that that's really 
for their benefit.  You know, it's not because it was required 
by a response to the government.  
On the other hand, you know, say there was a rape 
victim and as a result of, whatever, you know, the prosecution, 
there was a request for medical records, or something like 
that.  I think it would be unfair that a victim would just have 
to turn over all of his or her medical records without first 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 16 of 25  PageID.2277

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
perhaps someone taking a look at it and saying there may be 
some things that there's a legal reason to say it doesn't fall 
within the subpoena for privacy concern, or whatever.  
So I kind of, you know -- your client put them in the 
position where their business records were subpoenaed, and 
contained within their business records perhaps were 
privileged.  I suspect there was more of a concern about 
corporate work product. 
But, be that as it may, I'm not -- unless I see some 
sort of, you know, other case law or some sort of factual 
information that causes me to question about the extent of the 
review for attorney-client privilege, at this point I think 
it's in, if it was in response to documents that were requested 
by the government.  
MR. HIRONAKA:  So that brings me to my last point, 
which is that, so again, we don't keep going back and forth.  
I -- you know, part of my argument today was going to be that I 
think it's the Buckley attorneys that need to be the ones kind 
of addressing the applicability here, you know, because they're 
the ones who responded, basically, to the subpoena.  I mean, 
and I'm not saying a client could never know that, but it's 
just if we're going straight off of these, I don't think 
anybody's memory is, yeah, that day, this is what we did.  
So -- and I'm not even sure the Buckley attorneys could do it, 
but I just -- I just feel like it's a little bit strange to 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 17 of 25  PageID.2278

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
have PacMar itself responding to it.  It almost needs to be 
Buckley because these are literally attorney's fees that 
they're asking to be -- get restitution for. 
THE COURT:  Yeah, I'm sure they're going to have to 
work with the attorneys because there's no way that the client 
would know what was done with regard to it.  
So -- so I guess the privilege log is not something 
I'm requiring.  What I'm really asking, I mean, is that they go 
back, and all the ones that they -- now that Mr. Nolan has 
advised me, the ones that are highlighted in green or yellow 
are supposedly related to the District of Hawaii prosecution -- 
excuse me -- take a look at those and show me why those are 
related to the District of Hawaii production of the subpoena.  
Because most of these entries, one, I either can't tell or, 
two, it doesn't look like it has anything to do with the 
District of Hawaii pros -- or the subpoenas from the government 
in the District of Hawaii prosecution. 
MR. HIRONAKA:  Thank you, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Yeah.  So I would say, they would look 
at -- this is how I was thinking -- they would look at it, they 
would say, Okay, you know, this isn't clear enough, or 
whatever; oh, yeah, this has nothing to do with it.  So they 
would delete those now upon second review, Court's guidance, 
they can't justify as being part of the District of Hawaii 
prosecution in response to the government.  Okay.  
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 18 of 25  PageID.2279

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
And then the ones that they think are or believe are, 
then for those, they would give me something that would clarify 
as to each of those entries why that was related, if it's not 
apparent from the current descriptions -- I think there were a 
couple of them that talked about it.  
MR. NOLAN:  I mean some are plain on their face. 
THE COURT:  Yeah. 
MR. NOLAN:  But most are not.  So I think what the 
government is hearing from the Court is essentially PacMar 
needs to look back at the ones they're claiming and they really 
need to explain each entry for which they're claiming.  You 
know, it may be as simple as, you know, see the entry, right?  
If it says, Responded to grand jury subpoena --
THE COURT:  Yes. 
MR. NOLAN:  -- in -- in Hawaii case.  But for a number 
of them, they'll need at least a short explanation as to why 
that particular billing entry relates.  
THE COURT:  Exactly.  Like there's this one on Page 54 
could be, research issues related to searches of employees' 
phones and devices.  So it's like, I don't know, was the 
government, like, going to search them or is demanding it?  
Maybe.  Or maybe they're just worried about it.  I don't know.  
So that I would say, What has that to do with it?  Stuff like 
that. 
MR. NOLAN:  Right.  I know what it has to do, but I 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 19 of 25  PageID.2280

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
have a lot more knowledge than the Court, and so they need to 
make that plain. 
THE COURT:  Yeah.  
MR. NOLAN:  I get that.  Let me propose -- I mean 
they're here, they've heard what you have to say.  Putting on 
the CEO or their counsel to generally address these things is 
not going to do what the Court's looking for.  So there's no 
point in doing that.  
I will get with them to talk about how they want to do 
this.  It's really at their option, right?  And how that might 
be formatted.  And then I will get with Mr. Hironaka and say, 
Hey, look, we're going to produce it as a spreadsheet, or we're 
going to produce it as, whatever, a declaration.  We're going 
to give it to Mr. Hironaka first.  We will try to see if we 
have some agreement.  And then if there is disagreement, then 
assuming PacMar wants to go forward, we will provide the Court 
with the agreed upon numbers, to the extent there are any, and 
the disagreed upon numbers, we'll give you the document, the 
supporting document.  And then, you know, I guess Mr. Hironaka 
may want an opportunity to cross-examine a live witness about 
that.  The Court may or may not want to hear any evidence.  But 
does that work as a procedure?  
THE COURT:  That sounds great, Mr. Nolan.  That sounds 
terrific.  So what I would do -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Hironaka.  
MR. HIRONAKA:  Sorry, just one question.  When you 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 20 of 25  PageID.2281

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
mentioned the local rules, attorney's fees and lodestar, I'm 
not sure what that is, but were you speaking with -- I just 
want to make sure I'm not missing an issue.  Were you speaking 
about reasonableness or that has nothing to do with that?  
THE COURT:  No, I wasn't talking about reasonableness.
MR. HIRONAKA:  Okay. 
THE COURT:  Because, you're right, an award of 
attorney's fees, case law indicates that the Court is supposed 
to scrutinize for reasonableness and everything.  This is a 
direct loss.  So this is, you know, you get punched in the 
face, you go to Queen's, you get -- I don't look to, Queen's, 
you charged too much for, you know, doing the X-ray.  That was 
the X-ray charge, that was the out-of-pocket loss, you know.  I 
just need to know that the -- you know, they don't just say 
X-ray.  For, like, for what?  The X-ray of the left orbital 
area, you know, having -- and it was the same date as the 
assault.  Okay.  So then that would be, you know, a 
compensated -- a compensated fee that was charged to the victim 
as a result of the criminal act.  Something like that.  That 
kind of directness. 
MR. HIRONAKA:  Don't get me wrong, I would love to 
charge a thousand dollars an hour but I -- 
THE COURT:  Understood.  So I wouldn't apply lodestar 
where we look at in terms of the -- you know, what is the -- in 
the -- we usually look at what is the going rate for an 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 21 of 25  PageID.2282

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
attorney with X number of years of experience.  And of course 
the Hawaii market is very different than --
MR. HIRONAKA:  Got it. 
THE COURT:  -- many of the Mainland markets.  So, but 
I would not look at reasonableness because it was charged and 
I'm assuming it was, you know, paid by the victim.  I'm looking 
for the directness in terms of -- to -- to the -- to Mr. Kao's 
wrongdoing in the District of Hawaii and as a result of the 
government's investigation.  So if that's response to 
subpoenas, or maybe not a subpoena, but a request or an 
indication that the government will issue subpoenas for, you 
know, for employees' phones and things like that, then I think 
that's a natural consequence.  
I just can't tell.  And so I guess either they -- you 
know, for -- I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but there 
must be some sort of format they can come up with; these are 
what we're claiming for and then you can have an annotation or 
something --
MR. HIRONAKA:  Sure. 
THE COURT:  -- to indicate to me.
So what I propose doing, just for our recordkeeping 
purposes, is that our minutes will reflect that the motion is 
denied -- for restitution is denied without prejudice to 
refiling with additional documentation.  And that way it 
terms the motion in terms of I'm not just leaving it open and 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 22 of 25  PageID.2283

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
not resolving it.  But that also because without prejudice 
gives PacMar an opportunity to then recalibrate and provide the 
documentation, have this meet and confer with Mr. Hironaka, and 
whatever you can't, you know, agree upon or resolve, then you 
can either bring back to me or, again, I could talk to Chief 
Magistrate Judge Mansfield and have him or assign -- he could 
assign one of the magistrate judges to sit down with you folks 
and see if you can work out an agreement or work out some sort 
of format.  Again, I'm not going to require it, I'm just 
offering that. 
MR. NOLAN:  Okay.  That makes a lot of sense to the 
government. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Very good.  Ms. Nieling, do 
you have anything?  As long as I don't task you to go through 
each of the billing?  
THE U.S. PROBATION OFFICER:  No, Your Honor, I have 
nothing more to add.  I think the Court's discussions are 
consistent with what we articulated in the PSR in terms of just 
requiring more specificity and documentation. 
THE COURT:  Yeah.  Yeah.  So we just can't tell at 
this point.  I'm not saying -- I do think they are legally 
entitled to certain restitution and they're not denied because 
of the arbitration award, but I just can't tell for lack of 
specificity.  
All right.  Very good.  So our minutes will serve as 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 23 of 25  PageID.2284

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
the order then denying without prejudice to refiling.  And then 
I won't give you any deadline.  You guys work it out and then 
you file it and we'll schedule a hearing and go forward from 
there. 
MR. NOLAN:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you all.  Appreciate it.  
We stand in recess.  Good day everyone.  
(The proceedings concluded at 10:37 a.m., 
April 30, 2025.) 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 24 of 25  PageID.2285

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, CYNTHIA FAZIO, Official Court Reporter, United 
States District Court, District of Hawaii, do hereby certify 
that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §753 the foregoing pages is a 
complete, true, and correct transcript of the stenographically 
reported proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that 
the transcript page format is in conformance with the 
regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
DATED at Honolulu, Hawaii, March 1, 2026.
                        /s/ Cynthia Fazio           
                        CYNTHIA FAZIO, RMR, CRR, CRC
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 189     Filed 03/02/26     Page 25 of 25  PageID.2286

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.189.0.pdf

Size

288,731 bytes

SHA-256

207e41cc924d147ebd61c7fe45224eb0884a94142805e11bd654ed70da61f253

Our copy

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.189.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)