Jill A. Otake
How Judge Otake rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Otake
Jill Aiko Otake is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Otake received a commission on August 3, 2018.
Judge Otake's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Otake, 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.
- General Civil Procedures ↗
- General Criminal Procedures ↗
- Civil Jury Instructions ↗
- Criminal Jury Instructions ↗
Key rules
Motions
Lead counsel must conduct prefiling conferences in real time; letters or email do not count.
“All Local Rule 7.8 conferences shall be conducted by lead counsel and shall take place via a communication method that, at a minimum, allows all parties to be in realtime communication.”
Motions
Combine summary judgment requests for all claims being challenged in one motion.
“Parties are prohibited from filing multiple motions for summary judgment that address fewer than all claims for which summary judgment is sought.”
Conferences
Off-island counsel seeking a telephone appearance must email a letter request at least a week before the hearing.
“Counsel and pro se parties who are not located on the island of O‘ahu who wish to appear for hearings via telephone must submit a letter request to [email protected] at least one week prior to the hearing.”
Conferences
A trial continuance requires a motion, even when requested well before trial.
“Motions, not letters, are required to seek a trial continuance, no matter how far in advance of trial the continuance is sought.”
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 Otake decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an employment-discrimination case turning on employee-versus-independent-contractor status, the judge gave weight to the parties' own written characterization of the relationship, plus objective factors like tax treatment and benefits, over the plaintiff's account of day-to-day oversight.
“In the instant case, Defendant and Plaintiff made clear that they were creating an independent contractor relationship: prior to Plaintiff beginning to work at the hospital, the two parties signed two written agreements that expressly characterized Plaintiff as an independent contractor. ... This of course strongly suggests that Plaintiff was an independent contractor.”
In the firearms age-limit case, the court compared the historical reasons for regulating minors’ access to weapons with the modern restriction rather than requiring an identical earlier law. It granted the state official’s summary judgment motion on that record.
“While these 19th century laws were not dead ringers for the modern Hawai‘i age restriction, they shared the same why and mostly the same how, such that the Court considers them analogous enough to the challenged law.”
Procedural preferences
On a putative class claim involving individualized accommodation decisions, the judge required plaintiffs to affirmatively show why commonality and predominance survived those individualized inquiries, rather than resting on the employer's facially uniform policy.
“Because it is ultimately Plaintiffs’ burden to explain why commonality, typicality, and predominance are met despite these seemingly individualized inquiries, and they have not done so here, the Court agrees with Hawaiian that certification of the ADA subclasses is not warranted despite Hawaiian’s across-the-board reliance on CDC guidance.”
Cautions
The cruise-tax challengers could not obtain interim relief by asserting constitutional injury alone after the court found they had not shown likely success; the court also required a concrete showing of likely harm before final judgment.
“Yet because the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs are not likely to prove such constitutional violations, they have not established they will suffer irreparable harm during the pendency of this case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Plaintiff is not protected under Title VII, and the Motion is granted.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 35, as to Plaintiff’s ADEA claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 4. The Petition is DISMISSED without leave to amend.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.”
“The Court accordingly DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants Wayne K. Masuda, Tim Caires, Jeffrey K. Lee, And David Malone's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 51.”
“The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability.”
“DENIES Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant's Expert Sarah Butler [ECF No. 175]”
“DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant's Expert Andrew Y. Lemon [ECF No. 176]”
“DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Stefan Boedeker [ECF No. 180].”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion because Plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability claims are expressly preempted by the HMTA and HMR.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART (1) the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Filed October 12, 2020 and (2) Emlyn H. Higa's, Individually, Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Count 1 of the FAC is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Seina's Motion is DENIED as moot.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Transfer is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed January 2025 civil cohort includes immigration, consumer-credit, and other matters. Three later cases were selected for signed rulings on firearms, cruise-tax, and employment-related issues. This selection does not establish a courtwide case 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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Otake: 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 Otake with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Otake, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Otake's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace