Civil Jury Instructions; Criminal Jury Instructions (female); Criminal Jury Instructions (male); Memo Regarding Concise Statement; Trial Procedures; Rule 404B Notice Requirements; Electronic Devices; Standing Order Regarding Motions to Continue

=== Civil Jury Instructions ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII HELEN GILLMOR United States District Judge GENERAL FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES (2023) INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DUTY OF JUDGE/DUTY OF JURY DUTY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS A B Private Individuals As Parties Corporation As Party EVIDENCE -- EXCLUDING ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL EVIDENCE -- OBJECTIONS EVIDENCE -- EXCLUDING STATEMENTS OF JUDGE EVIDENCE -- JUDICIAL NOTICE EVIDENCE -- STIPULATION EVIDENCE -- DEPOSITIONS EVIDENCE -- INTERROGATORIES EVIDENCE -- DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE -- CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS EVIDENCE -- EXPERT WITNESSES IMPEACHMENT -- REPUTATION FOR TRUTHFULNESS IMPEACHMENT -- PRIOR CONVICTION CORPORATION RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS AND DECLARATIONS OF ITS AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES BURDEN OF PROOF - PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE A B Single Claim Multiple Claims MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS NO OUTSIDE RESEARCH DUTY TO DELIBERATE DAMAGES INSTRUCTION NOT RELEVANT TO LIABILITY USE OF NOTES VERDICT FORM COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 1 Members of the Jury: You have now heard all of the evidence in the case, as well as the final arguments of the lawyers for the parties. It becomes my duty, therefore, to instruct you on the rules of law that you must follow and apply in arriving at your decision in this case. In any jury trial there are, in effect, two judges. I am one of the judges, the other is the jury. It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 2A You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now in the process of defining for you. You must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. In deciding the facts of this case you must not be swayed by sympathy, bias or prejudice as to any party. This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between persons of equal standing in the community, and holding the same or similar stations in life. The law is no respecter of persons, and all persons stand equal before the law and are to be dealt with as equals in a court of justice. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 2B You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now in the process of defining for you. You must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. In deciding the facts of this case you must not be swayed by sympathy, bias or prejudice as to any party. This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between persons of equal standing in the community, and holding the same or similar stations in life. The law is no respecter of persons, and all persons stand equal before the law and are to be dealt with as equals in a court of justice. A corporation is entitled to the same fair trial at your hands as is a private individual. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 3 As stated earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts, and in so doing you must consider only the evidence I have admitted in the case. The term "evidence" includes the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record. Remember that questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. Although you must consider a lawyer’s questions to understand the answers of a witness, the lawyer’s questions are not evidence. Similarly, what the lawyers have said in their opening and closing statements, and have said at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers state them, your memory of them controls. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 4 There are rules of evidence which control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I overrule the objection, the question may be answered or the exhibit received. If I sustain the objection, the question cannot be answered and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I sustain an objection to a question, you must not speculate as to what the answer might have been or as to the reason for the objection. You must not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that was rejected, or any evidence that was stricken from the record; such matter is to be treated as though you had never known of it. In addition, some evidence was received only for a limited purpose; when I have instructed you to consider certain evidence in a limited way, you must do so. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 5 During the course of a trial I may have occasionally made comments to the lawyers, or asked questions of a witness, or admonished a witness concerning the manner in which he should respond to the questions of counsel. Do not assume from anything I have said that I have any opinion concerning any of the issues in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own findings as to the facts. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 6 The court may take judicial notice of certain facts or events. When the court declares it will take judicial notice of some fact or event, you may accept the court's declaration as evidence, and regard the fact or event which has been judicially noticed as conclusively proved. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 7 In this case, the parties have agreed, or stipulated, as to certain facts. This means that they both agree that these facts are true. You should therefore treat these facts as having been conclusively proved. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 8 Certain testimony has been read into evidence from depositions. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in writing. You are to consider that testimony as if it had been given in court. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 9 During the course of the trial you have heard reference made to the word "interrogatory". An interrogatory is a written question asked by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in writing. You are to consider interrogatories and the answers thereto the same as if the questions had been asked and answered here in court. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 10 Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. So, while you should consider only the evidence in the case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case. You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 11 In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: (1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; (2) the witness’s memory, candor, fairness, and intelligence; (3) the witness’s manner while testifying; (4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, if any; (5) the witness’s bias or prejudice, if any; (6) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony; (7) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and (8) any other factors that bear on believability. Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony. However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest. The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify. What is important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think their testimony deserves. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 12 The rules of evidence provide that if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge might assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify and state his or her opinion concerning such matters. You should consider each expert opinion received in evidence in this case and give it such weight as you may think it deserves. If you decide that the opinion of an expert witness is not based upon sufficient education and experience, or if you should conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, then you may disregard the opinion entirely. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 13 A witness may also be discredited or impeached by evidence that the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity is bad in the community where the witness now resides, or has recently resided. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 14 The fact that a witness has previously been convicted of a felony, or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, is also a factor you may consider in weighing the credibility of that witness. The fact of such a conviction does not necessarily destroy the witness's credibility, but is one of the circumstances you may take into account in determining the weight to be given to his or her testimony. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 15 When a corporation is involved, of course, it may act only through natural persons as its agents or employees; and, in general, any agent or employee of a corporation may bind the corporation by acts and declarations made while acting within the scope of the authority delegated to him or her by the corporation, or within the scope of the agent's or employee's duties to the corporation. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 16A The burden is on the plaintiff in a civil action such as this to prove every essential element of the claim by a "preponderance of the evidence." A preponderance of the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces in your minds a belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true. In other words, to establish a claim by a "preponderance of the evidence" merely means to prove that the claim is more likely so than not so. In determining whether any fact in issue has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, the jury may consider the testimony of all the witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all the exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them. If the proof should fail to establish any essential element of plaintiff's claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the jury should find for the defendant as to that claim. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 16B In a civil action such as this, each party asserting a claim, as hereafter described, has the burden of proving every essential element of his claim by a "preponderance of the evidence." A preponderance of the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces in your minds a belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true. In other words, to establish a claim by a "preponderance of the evidence" merely means to prove that the claim is more likely so than not so. Where more than one claim is involved, as in this case, you should consider each claim, and the evidence pertaining to it, separately, as you would had each claim been tried before you separately; but in determining any fact in issue, you may consider the testimony of all the witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all the exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them. If a preponderance of the evidence does not support each essential element of a claim, then the jury should find against the party having the burden of proof as to that claim. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17 Although there are two sets of plaintiffs in this suit, the case of each is separate from and independent of the other. The instructions govern the case as to each plaintiff so far as they are applicable to that plaintiff, unless otherwise stated. You will determine each plaintiff's case separately, the same as if you were trying different lawsuits. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 18 Although there is more than one defendant in this suit, it does not follow from that fact alone that if one is liable all are liable. Each defendant is entitled to a fair and separate consideration of that defendant's own defense and is not to be prejudiced by your decision as to the others. All instructions given apply to the case against each defendant unless otherwise stated. You will decide each defendant's case separately. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 19 Remember that even during your deliberations, my mandate to you still applies that you not read any news stories or articles, listen to any radio, or watch any television reports about the case or about anyone who has anything to do with it. Do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the internet, or using other reference materials, and do not make any investigation about the case on your own. And do not discuss the case in any manner with others, directly or through social media. You may only discuss the case with your fellow jurors during your deliberations, with all twelve of you present. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 20 Your verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views, and change your opinion, if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence, solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember at all times, you are not partisans. You are judges -- judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 21 Of course, the fact that I have given you instructions concerning the issue of plaintiff's damages should not be interpreted in any way as an indication that I believe the plaintiff should, or should not, prevail in this case. COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. 22 Some of you have taken notes during trial. Whether or not you took notes, you should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 23 Upon retiring to the jury room you should first select one of your number to act as your foreperson who will preside over your deliberations and will be your spokesperson here in court. A verdict form has been prepared for your convenience. (Explain verdict) You will take the verdict form to the jury room and when you have reached unanimous agreement as to your verdict, you will have your foreperson fill it in, date and sign it, and then return to the courtroom. If, during your deliberations, you should desire to communicate with the Court, please reduce your message or question to writing signed by the foreperson. The foreperson will then contact the Courtroom Manager via the telephone located in the hallway outside the jury room. The Courtroom Manager will pick up the note and bring it to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you returned to the courtroom so that I can address you orally. I caution you, however, with regard to any message or question you might send, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at the time.

=== Criminal Jury Instructions (female) ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII HELEN GILLMOR United States District Judge GENERAL FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES (F 2023) INDEX DUTY OF JUDGE DUTY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS Single Defendant Multiple Defendants REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENDANT'S DECISION NOT TO TESTIFY EVIDENCE -- EXCLUDING ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL EVIDENCE -- OBJECTIONS EVIDENCE -- EXCLUDING STATEMENTS OF JUDGE EVIDENCE -- STIPULATION EVIDENCE -- DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE -- CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES EVIDENCE -- EXPERT WITNESSES IMPEACHMENT -- REPUTATION FOR TRUTHFULNESS IMPEACHMENT -- PRIOR CONVICTION IMPEACHMENT OF DEFENDANT General Instruction General Instruction & Prior Conviction (To be read, in addition to #12 above, when defendant is impeached by prior conviction) ON OR ABOUT KNOWINGLY CAUTION -- PUNISHMENT Single Defendant, Single Count in Indictment Single Defendant, Multiple Counts in Indictment Multiple Defendants, Single Count Multiple Defendants, Multiple Counts USE OF NOTES NO OUTSIDE RESEARCH DUTY TO DELIBERATE VERDICT Verdict Form -- Single Defendant Verdict Forms -- Multiple Defendants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A B A B A B C D A B COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 1 Members of the Jury: You have now heard all of the evidence in the case as well as the final arguments of the lawyers for the parties. It becomes my duty, therefore, to instruct you on the rules of law that you must follow and apply in arriving at your decision in the case. In any jury trial there are, in effect, two judges. I am one of the judges; the other is the jury. It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 2A You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now defining for you. You must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the testimony and evidence in the case, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors in this case, and they have the right to expect nothing less. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 2B You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now defining for you. Unless otherwise stated, you should consider each instruction to apply separately and individually to each defendant on trial. You must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the testimony and evidence in the case, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors in this case, and they have the right to expect nothing less. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 3 The indictment or formal charge against a defendant is not evidence. The defendant is presumed to be innocent and does not have to present any evidence to prove innocence. The government has the burden of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must return a not guilty verdict. While the government's burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden, it is not necessary that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond all possible doubt. It is only required that the government's proof exclude any "reasonable doubt" concerning the defendant's guilt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense, and may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty. If after a careful and impartial consideration with your fellow jurors of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration with your fellow jurors of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 4 The law does not compel a defendant in a criminal case to testify. No presumption of guilt may be raised, and no inference of any kind may be drawn, from the fact that the defendant did not testify. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 5 As stated earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts, and in doing so, you must consider only the evidence I have admitted in the case. The term "evidence" includes the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record. Remember that questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. Although you must consider a lawyer’s questions to understand the answers of a witness, the lawyer’s questions are not evidence. Similarly, what the lawyers have said in their opening and closing statements, and have said at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers state them, your memory of them controls. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 6 There are rules of evidence which control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I overrule the objection, the question may be answered or the exhibit received. If I sustain the objection, the question cannot be answered and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I sustain an objection to a question, you must not speculate as to what the answer might have been or as to the reason for the objection. You must not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that was rejected, or any evidence that was stricken from the record; such matter is to be treated as though you had never known of it. In addition, some evidence was received only for a limited purpose; when I have instructed you to consider certain evidence in a limited way, you must do so. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 7 During the trial I may occasionally make comments to the lawyers, or ask questions of a witness, or admonish a witness concerning the manner in which he or she should respond to the questions of counsel. Do not assume from anything I have said that I have any opinion concerning any of the issues in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own findings as to the facts. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 8 In this case, the government and the defendant have agreed, or stipulated, as to certain facts. This means that they both agree that these facts are true. You should therefore treat these facts as having been conclusively proved. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 9 Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. So, while you should consider only the evidence in the case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case. You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 10 In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: (1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; (2) the witness’s memory, candor, fairness, and intelligence; (3) the witness’s manner while testifying; (4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, if any; (5) the witness’s bias or prejudice, if any; (6) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony; (7) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and (8) any other factors that bear on believability. Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony. However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest. The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify. What is important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think their testimony deserves. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 11 The rules of evidence provide that if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge might assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify and state his or her opinion concerning such matters. You should consider each expert opinion received in evidence in this case and give it such weight as you may think it deserves. If you decide that the opinion of an expert witness is not based upon sufficient education and experience, or if you should conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, then you may disregard the opinion entirely. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 12 A witness may also be discredited or impeached by evidence that the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity is bad in the community where the witness now resides, or has recently resided. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 13 The fact that a witness has previously been convicted of a felony, or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, is also a factor you may consider in weighing the credibility of that witness. The fact of such a conviction does not necessarily destroy the witness' credibility, but is one of the circumstances you may take into account in determining the weight to be given to the testimony. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 14A As stated earlier, a defendant has a right not to testify. If a defendant does testify, however, her testimony should be weighed and considered, and her credibility determined, in the same way as that of any other witness. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 14B As stated earlier, a defendant has a right not to testify. If a defendant does testify, however, her testimony should be weighed and considered, and her credibility determined, in the same way as that of any other witness. Evidence of a defendant's previous conviction of a crime is to be considered by you only insofar as it may affect the credibility of the defendant as a witness, and must never be considered as evidence of guilt of the crime for which the defendant is on trial. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 15 You will note that the indictment charges that the offense was committed "on or about" a certain date. The proof need not establish with certainty the exact date of the alleged offense. It is sufficient if the evidence in the case establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 16 An act is done knowingly if the defendant is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. You may consider evidence of the defendant’s words, acts, or omissions, along with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17A I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendant is not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in the indictment. Nor are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17B A separate crime or offense is charged in each count of the indictment. Each charge and the evidence pertaining to it should be considered separately. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to one of the offenses charged should not control your verdict as to any other offense charged. I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendant is not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in the indictment. Neither are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17C The case of each defendant and the evidence pertaining to him should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one of the defendants guilty or not guilty should not control your verdict as to any other defendant. I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendants are not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in their respective indictments. Neither are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17D A separate crime or offense is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each offense, and the evidence pertaining to it, should be considered separately. Also, the case of each defendant should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one or more of the accused guilty or not guilty of any of the offenses charged should not control your verdict as to any other offense or any other defendant. I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendants are not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in their respective indictments. Neither are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. 18 Some of you have taken notes during trial. Whether or not you took notes, you should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 19 Remember that even during your deliberations, my mandate to you still applies that you not read any news stories or articles, listen to any radio, or watch any television reports about the case or about anyone who has anything to do with it. Do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the internet, or using other reference materials, and do not make any investigation about the case on your own. And do not discuss the case in any manner with others, directly or through social media. You may only discuss the case with your fellow jurors during your deliberations, with all twelve of you present. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 20 Any verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty as jurors, to consult with one another, and to deliberate in an effort to reach agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence in the case with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember at all times, you are not partisans. You are judges -- judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 21A Upon retiring to the jury room you should first select one of your number to act as your foreperson who will preside over your deliberations and will be your spokesperson here in court. A form of verdict has been prepared for your convenience. (Explain verdict) You will take the verdict form to the jury room and when you have reached unanimous agreement as to your verdict, you will have your foreperson fill it in, date and sign it, and then return to the courtroom. If, during your deliberations, you desire to communicate with the Court, please reduce your message or question to writing signed by the foreperson, and pass the note to the Court Security Officer who will bring it to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you returned to the courtroom so that I can address you orally. I caution you, however, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at any time. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 21B Upon retiring to the jury room you should first select one juror to act as your foreperson who will preside over your deliberations and will be your spokesperson here in court. Forms of verdicts have been prepared for your convenience. You will take the verdict forms to the jury room and when you have reached unanimous agreement as to your verdicts, you will have your foreperson fill them in, date and sign them, and then return to the courtroom. If, during your deliberations, you desire to communicate with the Court, please reduce your message or question to writing signed by the foreperson, and pass the note to the Court Security Officer who will bring it to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you returned to the courtroom so that I can address you orally. I caution you, however, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at any time.

=== Criminal Jury Instructions (male) ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII HELEN GILLMOR United States District Judge GENERAL FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES (M 2023) INDEX DUTY OF JUDGE DUTY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS Single Defendant Multiple Defendants REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENDANT'S DECISION NOT TO TESTIFY EVIDENCE -- EXCLUDING ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL EVIDENCE -- OBJECTIONS EVIDENCE -- EXCLUDING STATEMENTS OF JUDGE EVIDENCE -- STIPULATION EVIDENCE -- DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE -- CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES EVIDENCE -- EXPERT WITNESSES IMPEACHMENT -- REPUTATION FOR TRUTHFULNESS IMPEACHMENT -- PRIOR CONVICTION IMPEACHMENT OF DEFENDANT General Instruction General Instruction & Prior Conviction (To be read, in addition to #12 above, when defendant is impeached by prior conviction) ON OR ABOUT KNOWINGLY CAUTION -- PUNISHMENT Single Defendant, Single Count in Indictment Single Defendant, Multiple Counts in Indictment Multiple Defendants, Single Count Multiple Defendants, Multiple Counts USE OF NOTES NO OUTSIDE RESEARCH DUTY TO DELIBERATE VERDICT Verdict Form -- Single Defendant Verdict Forms -- Multiple Defendants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A B A B A B C D A B COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 1 Members of the Jury: You have now heard all of the evidence in the case as well as the final arguments of the lawyers for the parties. It becomes my duty, therefore, to instruct you on the rules of law that you must follow and apply in arriving at your decision in the case. In any jury trial there are, in effect, two judges. I am one of the judges; the other is the jury. It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 2A You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now defining for you. You must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the testimony and evidence in the case, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors in this case, and they have the right to expect nothing less. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 2B You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now defining for you. Unless otherwise stated, you should consider each instruction to apply separately and individually to each defendant on trial. You must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the testimony and evidence in the case, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors in this case, and they have the right to expect nothing less. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 3 The indictment or formal charge against a defendant is not evidence. The defendant is presumed to be innocent and does not have to present any evidence to prove innocence. The government has the burden of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must return a not guilty verdict. While the government's burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden, it is not necessary that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond all possible doubt. It is only required that the government's proof exclude any "reasonable doubt" concerning the defendant's guilt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense, and may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty. If after a careful and impartial consideration with your fellow jurors of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration with your fellow jurors of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 4 The law does not compel a defendant in a criminal case to testify. No presumption of guilt may be raised, and no inference of any kind may be drawn, from the fact that the defendant did not testify. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 5 As stated earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts, and in doing so, you must consider only the evidence I have admitted in the case. The term "evidence" includes the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record. Remember that questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. Although you must consider a lawyer’s questions to understand the answers of a witness, the lawyer’s questions are not evidence. Similarly, what the lawyers have said in their opening and closing statements, and have said at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers state them, your memory of them controls. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 6 There are rules of evidence which control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I overrule the objection, the question may be answered or the exhibit received. If I sustain the objection, the question cannot be answered and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I sustain an objection to a question, you must not speculate as to what the answer might have been or as to the reason for the objection. You must not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that was rejected, or any evidence that was stricken from the record; such matter is to be treated as though you had never known of it. In addition, some evidence was received only for a limited purpose; when I have instructed you to consider certain evidence in a limited way, you must do so. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 7 During the trial I may occasionally make comments to the lawyers, or ask questions of a witness, or admonish a witness concerning the manner in which he or she should respond to the questions of counsel. Do not assume from anything I have said that I have any opinion concerning any of the issues in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own findings as to the facts. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 8 In this case, the government and the defendant have agreed, or stipulated, as to certain facts. This means that they both agree that these facts are true. You should therefore treat these facts as having been conclusively proved. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 9 Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. So, while you should consider only the evidence in the case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case. You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 10 In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: (1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; (2) the witness’s memory, candor, fairness, and intelligence; (3) the witness’s manner while testifying; (4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, if any; (5) the witness’s bias or prejudice, if any; (6) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony; (7) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and (8) any other factors that bear on believability. Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony. However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest. The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify. What is important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think their testimony deserves. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 11 The rules of evidence provide that if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge might assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify and state his or her opinion concerning such matters. You should consider each expert opinion received in evidence in this case and give it such weight as you may think it deserves. If you decide that the opinion of an expert witness is not based upon sufficient education and experience, or if you should conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, then you may disregard the opinion entirely. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 12 A witness may also be discredited or impeached by evidence that the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity is bad in the community where the witness now resides, or has recently resided. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 13 The fact that a witness has previously been convicted of a felony, or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, is also a factor you may consider in weighing the credibility of that witness. The fact of such a conviction does not necessarily destroy the witness' credibility, but is one of the circumstances you may take into account in determining the weight to be given to the testimony. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 14A As stated earlier, a defendant has a right not to testify. If a defendant does testify, however, his testimony should be weighed and considered, and his credibility determined, in the same way as that of any other witness. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 14B As stated earlier, a defendant has a right not to testify. If a defendant does testify, however, his testimony should be weighed and considered, and his credibility determined, in the same way as that of any other witness. Evidence of a defendant's previous conviction of a crime is to be considered by you only insofar as it may affect the credibility of the defendant as a witness, and must never be considered as evidence of guilt of the crime for which the defendant is on trial. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 15 You will note that the indictment charges that the offense was committed "on or about" a certain date. The proof need not establish with certainty the exact date of the alleged offense. It is sufficient if the evidence in the case establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 16 An act is done knowingly if the defendant is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. You may consider evidence of the defendant’s words, acts, or omissions, along with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17A I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendant is not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in the indictment. Nor are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17B A separate crime or offense is charged in each count of the indictment. Each charge and the evidence pertaining to it should be considered separately. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to one of the offenses charged should not control your verdict as to any other offense charged. I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendant is not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in the indictment. Neither are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17C The case of each defendant and the evidence pertaining to him should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one of the defendants guilty or not guilty should not control your verdict as to any other defendant. I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendants are not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in their respective indictments. Neither are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 17D A separate crime or offense is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each offense, and the evidence pertaining to it, should be considered separately. Also, the case of each defendant should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one or more of the accused guilty or not guilty of any of the offenses charged should not control your verdict as to any other offense or any other defendant. I caution you, members of the Jury, that you are here to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty from the evidence in this case. The defendants are not on trial for any act or conduct or offense not alleged in their respective indictments. Neither are you called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person or persons not on trial as a defendant in this case. Also, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged in the indictment is a matter exclusively within the province of the court or judge, and should never be considered by the jury in any way, in arriving at an impartial verdict as to the accused. COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. 18 Some of you have taken notes during trial. Whether or not you took notes, you should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 19 Remember that even during your deliberations, my mandate to you still applies that you not read any news stories or articles, listen to any radio, or watch any television reports about the case or about anyone who has anything to do with it. Do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the internet, or using other reference materials, and do not make any investigation about the case on your own. And do not discuss the case in any manner with others, directly or through social media. You may only discuss the case with your fellow jurors during your deliberations, with all twelve of you present. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 20 Any verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty as jurors, to consult with one another, and to deliberate in an effort to reach agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence in the case with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember at all times, you are not partisans. You are judges -- judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 21A Upon retiring to the jury room you should first select one of your number to act as your foreperson who will preside over your deliberations and will be your spokesperson here in court. A form of verdict has been prepared for your convenience. (Explain verdict) You will take the verdict form to the jury room and when you have reached unanimous agreement as to your verdict, you will have your foreperson fill it in, date and sign it, and then return to the courtroom. If, during your deliberations, you desire to communicate with the Court, please reduce your message or question to writing signed by the foreperson, and pass the note to the Court Security Officer who will bring it to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you returned to the courtroom so that I can address you orally. I caution you, however, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at any time. COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 21B Upon retiring to the jury room you should first select one juror to act as your foreperson who will preside over your deliberations and will be your spokesperson here in court. Forms of verdicts have been prepared for your convenience. You will take the verdict forms to the jury room and when you have reached unanimous agreement as to your verdicts, you will have your foreperson fill them in, date and sign them, and then return to the courtroom. If, during your deliberations, you desire to communicate with the Court, please reduce your message or question to writing signed by the foreperson, and pass the note to the Court Security Officer who will bring it to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you returned to the courtroom so that I can address you orally. I caution you, however, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at any time.

=== Memo Regarding Concise Statement ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Memorandum Re: Compliance with Local Rule 56.1 Concise Statement of Facts for Motions for Summary Judgment You will find an Example of a Concise Statement of Facts and an Opposing Concise Statement of Facts attached. The following points set forth the Key Requirements of Local Rule 56.1: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The separate Concise Statement is limited to 5 pages or no more than 1500 words. Only material facts that are absolutely necessary for the Court to determine the limited issues presented in the Motion should be included in the Concise Statement. Material facts put forward by the moving party’s separate Concise Statement are deemed admitted unless controverted by the separate Opposing Concise Statement. Each material fact shall be supported by evidence such as a particular affidavit, deposition, or other document. The Concise Statement shall particularly identify the filing, portion of each document referenced, and page in support of each material fact, and where it can be found in ECF. The relevant portions of each document shall be highlighted, or otherwise emphasized. Documents referenced in the Concise Statement need not be filed in their entirety, but may be if a party concludes that the full context would be helpful to the Court. The Concise Statement shall be filed separately. The Concise Statement should not be filed as an attachment to the Motion for Summary Judgment. All attached exhibits on all original and courtesy copies shall have appropriately labeled tabs. 1 9. Do not include argument in your separate Concise Statement. The purpose of the rule is to narrow the issues and provide the Court and the Parties with a statement of what is actually in dispute. Please be very specific as to what material facts are controverted and identify the specific evidence supporting your position. In addition to the Key Requirements outlined above, the Parties must also comply with all other provisions of Local Rule 56.1. revised 9/24/15 2 /s/ Helen Gillmor Helen GillmorUnited States District Judge EXAMPLE ROBERT M. MANGAN 854 Bishop Street, Suite 900 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone Number 555-9000 6666-0 Attorney for Defendant: L.H. Morgan Consulting Actuaries, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Lawrence Spann, Plaintiff, vs. L.H. Morgan Consulting Actuaries, Inc., _______________________________ Defendant. CIVIL NO. 12-99999 HG-RLP L.H. MORGAN CONSULTING ACTUARIES, INC.’S SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Hon. Helen Gillmor Trial Date: April 16, 2014 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Civil Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Defendant L.H. Morgan Consulting Actuaries, Inc. (“L.H. Morgan”) hereby submits its Separate and Concise Statement of Material Facts in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, which is being filed contemporaneously. 1 DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF FACTS FACTS EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT 1. On December 28, 2010, Plaintiff Lawrence Spann wrote to L.H. Morgan to request an employment interview. 2. Spann’s cover letter and resume were reviewed by Nancy Sullivan, Director of Personnel for L.H. Morgan 3. From the various awards and activities listed on Spann’s resume, Sullivan was aware that Spann was an African-American candidate. 4. Shortly after receiving Spann’s cover letter and resume, Sullivan contacted Spann and invited him to interview with L.H. Morgan on January 24, 2011, for a position in their Actuarial Trainee Program. 5. Although L.H. Morgan did not ordinarily reimburse entry-level candidates for their interview expenses, Sullivan offered to pay for Spann’s expenses because the firm was actively recruiting African-American candidates for its Actuarial Trainee Program 6. The percentage of African-Americans in the Actuarial Training Program at L.H. Morgan is six times higher than the national percentage of African- American actuaries. Letter from Lawrence Spann to L.H. Morgan dated 12/28/10 at p. 1, attached as Ex. C to Def.’s Concise Statement of Facts (“CSF”), ECF No. 35-4. Affidavit of Nancy Sullivan, Director of Personnel for L.H. Morgan (“Sullivan Aff.”) at ¶ 5, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3. Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 12, Ex. B, ECF No. 35-3. Spann’s Answers to Interrogatories at p. 5, attached as Ex. J to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 11. Spann’s Response to Request for Admissions at p. 11, attached as Ex. A to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-2. Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 13, Ex. B, ECF No. 35-3; NAACP Report dated July 8, 2010, entitled, “African-Americans in Actuarial Training Programs” at pp. 15, 27-28, attached as Ex. E to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-6. 2 7. As communicated to Spann in a letter dated January 5, 2011, Spann’s interview was scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011. 8. Spann was scheduled to interview with Director of Personnel Sullivan and Steven Parsons, a senior partner at the firm. 9. On January 24, 2011, Spann arrived at the L.H. Morgan offices at 9:55 a.m. 10. During his interview with Sullivan, Spann indicated that his salary expectations were around $80,000. 11. L.H. Morgan’s average starting salary for Actuarial Trainees is $60,000. 12. The industry-wide average starting salary for the equivalent position is $50,000. 13. During his interview with Parsons, Spann remarked that the duties of an Actuarial Trainee appeared somewhat menial and that he would expect to be promoted to Actuarial Associate within one year. Letter to Spann from Sullivan dated 1/5/11, attached as Ex. D to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 5. Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 11, Ex. B, ECF No. 35-3. Deposition of Lawrence Spann (“Spann Depo.”) at p. 9, attached as Ex. F to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-7. Id. at p. 14. Affidavit of Jane Turner, Director of Payroll for L.H. Morgan (“Turner Aff.”) at ¶ 4, attached as Ex. G to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 8. Report from the American Society of Actuaries dated January 10, 2012, entitled, “Assessment of Industry Compensation Standards” at pp. 48-49, attached as Ex. H to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-9. Spann Depo. at p. 18, Ex. F, ECF No. 35-7. 14. On average, entry-level candidates at L.H. Moran spend two and one half years as Actuarial Trainees before promotion to Actuarial Associate. Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 20, Ex. B, ECF No. 35-3; Turner Aff. at ¶ 6, Ex. G, ECF No. 35-8. 3 15. Spann devoted the majority of his interview with Parsons to inquiring about the Actuarial Associate position and the requirements for partnership. 16. In accordance with standard interview procedures, Sullivan and Parsons met after their interviews with Spann to discuss their impressions and to fill out a written evaluation form. 17. Sullivan and Parsons agreed that Spann should not be extended an employment offer. Affidavit of Steven Parsons (“Parsons Aff.”) at ¶ 5, attached as Ex. I to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-10. Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 19, Ex. B, ECF No. 35-3; Parsons Aff. at ¶ 8, Ex. I, ECF No. 35-10. Sullivan Aff. at ¶¶ 20- 21, Ex. B, ECF No. 35- 3; Parsons Aff. at ¶¶ 9-10, ECF No. 35-10. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 1, 2013. _______________________ ROBERT M. MANGAN Attorney for Defendant: L.H. MORGAN CONSULTING ACTUARIES, INC. 4 EXAMPLE CATHERINE M. FURST 741 Ala Moana Blvd, Suite 714 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone Number 555-7042 2233-0 Attorney for Plaintiff: Lawrence Spann IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Lawrence Spann, Plaintiff, vs. L.H. Morgan Consulting Actuaries, Inc., _______________________________ Defendant. CIVIL NO. 12-99999 HG-RLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing Date: November 5, 2013 Judge: Hon. Helen Gillmor Trial Date: April 16, 2014 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Civil Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Plaintiff Lawrence Spann hereby submits his Separate and Concise Statement of Facts in opposition to the Defendant L.H. Morgan Consulting Actuaries, Inc.’s Separate and Concise Statement of Facts submitted in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. Facts 1 through 17 correspond to the facts and supporting evidence presented in the Defendant’s Separate and Concise Statement of Material Facts. Where appropriate, Plaintiff has 1 indicated that the facts relied upon by Defendant are controverted. These are followed by additional material facts and supporting evidence that Plaintiff introduces to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF FACTS FACTS EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT See Letter from Lawrence Spann to L.H. Morgan dated 12/28/10 at p. 1, attached as Ex. C to Def.’s Concise Statement of Facts (“CSF”), ECF No. 35-4. See Affidavit of Nancy Sullivan, Director of Personnel for L.H. Morgan (“Sullivan Aff.”) at ¶ 5, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3. See Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 12, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3. Affidavit of Lawrence Spann (“Spann Aff.”) at ¶ 7, attached as Ex. A to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-2; Deposition of Nancy Sullivan (“Sullivan Depo.”) at p. 9, attached as Ex. B to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-3. 1. Undisputed. 2. Undisputed. 3. Undisputed. 4. Partially disputed. Although Nancy Sullivan did invite Plaintiff Lawrence Spann to interview with L.H. Morgan on January 25, 2011, Spann was never informed that he was only being considered for the Actuarial Trainee Program. 2 Def.’s Answers to Interrogatories at p. 2, attached as Ex. C to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37- 4. See Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 13, Ex. B, ECF No. 35- 3; NAACP Report dated July 8, 2010 entitled “African-Americans in Actuarial Training Programs” at pp. 15, 27-28, attached as Ex. E to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-6. See Letter to Spann from Sullivan dated 1/5/11, attached as Ex. D to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-5. See Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 11, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3. Deposition of Lawrence Spann (“Spann Depo.”) at pp. 9-10, attached as Ex. E to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-6; Affidavit of Kimo Watson (“Watson Aff.”) at ¶¶ 12-13, attached as Ex. F to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37- 7. 5. Partially disputed. L.H. Morgan was not actively recruiting African-American candidates for its Actuarial Trainee Program. L.H. Morgan did not hire a single African-American into its Actuarial Training Program between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2011. During this same period, the firm hired thirty non-African-Americans into the Program. 6. Undisputed. 7. Undisputed. 8. Undisputed. 9. Disputed. Plaintiff Spann arrived at L.H. Morgan’s building at 9:27 a.m., but was not able to proceed to L.H. Morgan’s reception area on the twenty- second floor because Sullivan had neglected to inform security that Spann was an expected visitor. By the time the security officer received Sullivan’s permission to send Spann upstairs, it was 9:51 a.m. As a result, Spann did not arrive at the L.H. Morgan reception area until about 9:53 a.m. 3 10. Partially disputed. Spann indicated that salary was negotiable, but that given his credentials, he believed $80,000 would be reasonable. Spann Depo. at pp. 10- 11, attached as Ex. E to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-6. See Affidavit of Jane Turner, Director of Payroll for L.H. Morgan (“Turner Aff.”) at ¶ 4, attached as Ex. G to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 8. See Report from the American Society of Actuaries dated January 10, 2012, entitled “Assessment of Industry Compensation Standards” at pp. 48-49, attached as Ex. H to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-9. Def.’s Response to Request for Admissions at p. 4, attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-5; Spann Aff. at ¶ 27, attached as Ex. A to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-2. See Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 20, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3; Turner Aff. at ¶ 6, attached as Ex. G to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 8. See Affidavit of Steven Parsons (“Parsons Aff.”) at ¶ 5, attached as Ex. I to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-10. 11. Undisputed. 12. Undisputed. 13. Partially disputed. Spann indicated to Parsons that he was confident in his ability and would expect to advance quickly. 14. Undisputed. 15. Undisputed. 4 16. Undisputed 17. Undisputed. See Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 19, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3; Parsons Aff. at ¶ 8, attached as Ex. I to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 10. See Sullivan Aff. at ¶ 20, attached as Ex. B to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35-3; Parsons Aff. at ¶ 9, attached as Ex. I to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 35- 10. Plaintiff also contends that the following additional material facts are relevant or in dispute. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION 18. Plaintiff Spann is a 2009 magna cum laude graduate of the Wharton School of Business, where he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics with concentrations in Actuarial Science and Accounting. Transcript for Lawrence Spann from the Wharton School of Business dated 6/10/09, attached as Ex. F to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-7. 19. In the course of his studies at the University of Pennsylvania, Spann maintained a 4.0 grade point average in his seven accounting classes and was awarded numerous academic prizes and citations. Id. 20. At the time of his application to L.H. Morgan, Spann had passed seven of the examinations administered by the American Society of Actuaries, making him an Associate Member of the Society. Certificate from the American Society of Actuaries for Lawrence Spann dated 12/05/10, attached as Ex. G to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37- 8. 5 21. When Spann mentioned to Sullivan that he thought $80,000 would be a fair salary, Sullivan told Spann that such a salary was on the high side, but not necessarily “out of the ballpark.” 22. When Spann expressed interest in the Actuarial Associate position and in the requirements for partnership, Parsons remarked that Spann might “be getting a little ahead of himself” to be thinking about such positions. 23. Of the thirty individuals hired into the Actuarial Trainee Program between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2011, twenty-seven had grade point averages that were lower than Spann’s and none had passed as many of the exams administered by the American Society of Actuaries. Spann Aff. at ¶ 10, attached as Ex. A to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37- 2. Id. at ¶ 17. Def.’s Answers to Interrogatories at pp. 7-9, attached as Ex. C to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 37-4. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 20, 2013. _______________________ CATHERINE M. FURST Attorney for Plaintiff: LAWRENCE SPANN 6

=== Trial Procedures ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ORDER RE JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES BEFORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR I. GUIDELINES FOR COURTROOM DECORUM DURING TRIALS BEFORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR The purpose of this order is to state, for the guidance of those heretofore unfamiliar with the traditions of this court, certain basic principles concerning courtroom behavior and decorum. The requirements stated in this section are minimal, not all inclusive, and are intended to emphasize and supplement, not supplant or limit, the ethical obligations of counsel under the Code of Professional Responsibility or the time honored customs of experienced trial counsel: When appearing in this court, unless excused by the presiding judge, all counsel shall (including, where the context applies, all persons at counsel table): (1) Stand as court is opened, recessed or adjourned. (2) Stand when the jury enters or retires from the courtroom. (3) Stand when addressing, or being addressed, by the court. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Stand at the lectern while examining any witness; except that counsel, with permission of the court, may approach the Courtroom Manager’s desk for purposes of handling or tendering exhibits. Stand at the lectern while making opening statements or closing arguments. Address all remarks to the court, not to opposing counsel. Avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing counsel and remain wholly detached from any ill feeling between litigants or witnesses. Refer to all persons, including witnesses, other counsel and the parties by their surnames and not by their first or given names. (9) Only one attorney for each party shall examine, or cross examine each witness. The attorney stating objections, if any, during direct examination shall be the attorney recognized for cross examination. (10) Counsel shall not approach the bench unless invited to do so by the court; and any document counsel wish to have the court examine and/or provide to a witness should be handed to the Courtroom Manager. (11) Any paper or exhibit not previously marked for identification should first be handed to the Courtroom Manager to be marked before it is tendered by the Courtroom Manager to a witness for his/her examination, along with a copy for the Court; and any exhibit offered in evidence should, at the time of such offer, be handed to opposing counsel. (12) In examining a witness, counsel shall not repeat or echo the answer given by the witness, nor shall they comment on or thank the witness for the answer. (13) Offers of, or requests for, a stipulation should be made privately, not within the hearing of the jury. (14) In opening statements and in arguments to the jury, counsel shall not express personal knowledge or opinion concerning any matter in issue; shall not read or purport to read from deposition or trial transcripts, and shall not suggest to the jury, directly or indirectly, that it may or should request transcripts or the reading of any testimony by the reporter. (15) Counsel shall admonish all persons at counsel table that gestures, facial expressions, audible comments, or the like, as manifestations of approval or disapproval during the testimony of witnesses, or at any other time, are absolutely prohibited. II. JURY TRIAL PROCEDURE A. Trial Days Trial sessions shall be held on Tuesday to Friday of each week. If a given Monday is a holiday, then trial sessions shall be held that week on Wednesday to Friday. 2 B. Procedure at Recesses and at the End of Each Session When it appears there are matters to be taken care of out of the hearing of the jury, at the beginning of each recess or at the end of each trial session, all attorneys, parties, and spectators shall rise while the jury files out of the courtroom. Once the jury has left the courtroom, the Court will inquire whether there are any matters counsel wish to put on the record out of the hearing of the jury. All offers of proof, preservation of objections, motions to reconsider evidentiary rulings, and discussions of witness or trial scheduling shall occur at this time. C. Objections The following procedure will be followed in presenting an objection to the Court: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Counsel will rise. The Court will not recognize an objection until counsel rises. Counsel will not state the objection until recognized by the Court. Counsel will state the objection in five words or less. (“Objection - Hearsay”, “Objection - Lack of Foundation”, “Objection - Rules of Evidence 403", “Objection - business records”) The Court will either rule, ask opposing counsel for a short response, ask objecting counsel to explain the objection, or call a sidebar. Counsel will not be allowed to make further arguments or explanations in the hearing of the jury. Counsel will reserve all such arguments, offers of proof and preservation of record for appeal purposes until the next recess when the Court will allow counsel to place all such matters on the record out of the hearing of the jury. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 20, 2022. 3

=== Rule 404B Notice Requirements ===

( \ IN THE u~ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII In the Matter of Final Pretrial Conference for Felony Trials Before the Honorable Helen Gillmor, United States District Judge. _____________________________ ORDER Fi!£D!NTHE UNITED STATES D!STS~CT COURT OiSTRlCT OF HA\iV!.;il ORDER WHEREAS, the Court finds it is advisable to require the disclosure by the prosecutor of intent to use evidence described in FED. R. EVID. 404(b) to be in writing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, at the final pretrial conference before a Magistrate Judge for any felony trial to be held before District Judge Helen Gillmor, the prosecutor shall not be able to satisfy the 404(b) notice requirements by oral statements. The Magistrate Jud$e shall require the United States Attorney to file and serve, within two days of the conference, a notice in writing of intent to use 404 (b) bad acts evidence. The notice shall describe the evidence with sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to identify the act. The defendant shall file and serve a written response to the 404(b) notice within two days after the filing of the notice. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, MAR 0 7 1995 Un~ ed States District Judge

=== Electronic Devices ===

UNITED STATES stn ATES DISTRIC DISTRICT OF HAWAV OORT OCT 16 2013 at ~o'clock and _|S min, M. SUE BEITIA, CLERK? » IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF ) Electronic Device Policy for Attorneys ) Appearing Before Judge Helen Gillmor ) ORDER REGARDING ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR’S COURTROOM AND CHAMBERS Pursuant to the General Order dated November 6, 2008, attorneys of record are authorized to bring electronic devices such as laptops, cell phones and tablets into the courthouse for the sole purpose of using the devices in connection with case-related proceedings in the courtroom or Judge Gillmor’s chambers. Any attorney of record bringing an electronic device into the courthouse pursuant to this order shall inform the court security officers at the entrance to the courthouse of the time of the attorney’s proceedings and the name of the case. Persons other than attorneys of record (including paralegals or other legal staff, parties, and witnesses) are not authorized by this order to bring electronic devices into the courtroom or Judge Gillmor’s chambers. An attorney of record in a case before Judge Gillmor is not authorized by this order to bring any electronic device into the courtroom when entering the courthouse for a matter other than a hearing before Judge Gillmor or a case-related conference with Judge Gillmor. No device may disrupt a court proceedings. All cell phones are always to be turned off upon entering the courtroom and turned on only with permission of the court. In no event may any camera or audio/video equipment be used in hearings or Judge Gillmor’s chambers to photograph or to record on video or audio proceedings. Further, no electronic device may be connected to the internet while in a hearing or Judge Gillmor’s chambers without permission of the court. This order may be modified at the discretion of Judge Gillmor in specific cases or for specific proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 16, 2013. /S/ Helen Gillmor Helen Gillmor % re, 8 ANS gs United States District Judge er ew "Ret ar 4

=== Standing Order Regarding Motions to Continue ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF Motions to Continue Trial in Cases Filed Within Thirty Days of Scheduled Trial Date ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO CONTINUE TRIAL IN CASES FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF SCHEDULED TRIAL DATE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all Motions to Continue Trial, within 30 days of the Trial date in cases before District Court Judge Helen Gillmor, will be heard before Judge Gillmor. DATED at Honolulu, Hawaii: August 5, 2016. ___________________________________ Helen Gillmor United States District Judge