Derrick K. Watson
How Judge Watson rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Watson
Derrick Kahala Watson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Watson received a commission on April 23, 2013.
Judge Watson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Watson, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Order Regarding General Practice and Trial Procedures before Judge Watson ↗
- Criminal Jury Instructions ↗
- Civil Jury Instructions ↗
Key rules
Conferences
Attend Judge Watson’s hearings in person unless the court grants timely leave to appear otherwise.
“All hearings before Judge Watson are to be attended by counsel, in person, unless prior leave is timely sought from and granted by the court to the contrary.”
Trial
Limit motions in limine and oppositions to five pages.
“The page limit for motions in limine and any opposition shall be five (5) pages.”
Trial
Meet and confer about a proposed motion in limine at least seven days before filing it.
“counsel shall meet and confer with respect to any motion in limine contemplated for filing at least seven (7) days prior to filing of the motion.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Watson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a personal-jurisdiction dismissal, the judge required more than a generalized 'stream of commerce' theory or a hunch that discovery might turn up jurisdictional facts: the plaintiff needed to identify specific facts suggesting the defendant's contacts with Hawaii.
“A request for discovery ‘based on little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts’ is not enough.”
Procedural preferences
In Lorinc v. City and County of Honolulu, he declined to decide the city's dismissal arguments on behalf of individual officers who had not been served, denying that part of the motion without prejudice.
“None of these individuals, however, have been served... The Court also declines to take this presumptive leap on their behalf. As a result, the Court will not further address the City’s arguments outlined above and the motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in that respect.”
In Schweitzer v. County of Hawai‘i, he certified unresolved questions under Hawai‘i law to the state supreme court because their answers could determine the claims before him and controlling precedent supplied no answer.
“All conditions of HRAP 13(a) are satisfied. The issues here are important questions of Hawai‘i law, determinative of the claims now before this Court, and without any answer found in controlling precedent.”
When defendants only contested state-court jurisdiction and service before removal, the judge found no clear waiver of their right to a federal forum.
“These activities fall far short of an adjudication on the merits”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 27, is GRANTED with respect to claims against the City. Dismissal is with partial leave to amend, as explained below. Further, with respect to claims against the unserved Officer Defendants, the motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal should those defendants be served and appear in this action.”
“Because neither LG Chem nor LG America can be deemed ‘essentially at home’ in Hawaii, this Court cannot assert general personal jurisdiction over either. ... Accordingly, the motions to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 23, 30, are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s counter-motion for jurisdictional discovery, Dkt. No. 29, 34, is DENIED.”
“the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 32, is GRANTED as unopposed, and the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave for Pollitt to amend the same in order to allege ‘an enforcement action only.’”
“Chan's motion is accordingly DENIED.”
“The Petition is DISMISSED.”
“Petitioner's Request for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment, based on Respondent's failure to timely answer the original Order to Show Cause and Answer, are DENIED as MOOT.”
“Ieremia has failed to show that his guilty plea was invalid, or that there is some other fair and just reason for its withdrawal, and his Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea, Dkt. No. 408, is DENIED.”
“The City and County of Honolulu; the Department of Planning and Permitting; Dawn Apuna, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Planning and Permitting; and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order, hereby are enjoined from enforcing or implementing Ordinance 22-7, signed into law on April 26, 2022, insofar as it prohibits 30–89-day home rentals, or the advertisement of such rentals, in any district on O‘ahu, pending further order from this Court.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, the motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 10, is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Elliot Loden's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I, Dkt. No. 57, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibits 7 and 8 of his Concise Statement of Facts, Dkt. No. 59, is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the motion, Dkt. No. 466, is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Fifth Circuit Court for the State of Hawai‘i, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), and the Clerk of this Court is instructed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the Fifth Circuit Court.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The eleven sampled civil cases included civil-rights, insurance, air-travel, property, personal-injury, and other disputes. Eight dated party-motion outcomes were found in four cases. These cases are a short filing cohort and do not establish the judge’s overall caseload mix or motion rate.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, not for Judge Watson: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 152 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 398 | 5.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 12 | 28.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 624 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 502 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 472 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 496 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 523 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 511 | 9.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Watson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Watson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Watson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace