Opinion ID: 870822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants' Evidence in Support of Third Motion

Text: In support of the third motion for summary judgment, the defendants, pursuant to HRCP 56(e) (2006), [6] attached parts of the 1985 EIS and the KDC unilateral agreement. With respect to the 1985 EIS, the defendants pointed to the following specific language contained therein, which stated: D. PHASING AND TIMING OF THE ACTION Figure 9 shows the approximate phasing of development for the resort (phasing is dependent on receiving the necessary governmental approvals). Note that Phase I designation generally indicates a 1986 start of construction date, Phase II, commencement between 1988 to 1989, and Phase III, [c]ommencement between 1993 to 1996. With respect to the unilateral agreement, the defendants pointed to a provision therein, which stated in relevant part: 3. Development of the project shall generally be based on the submitted schedule [(which is the same as the one referenced in the 1985 EIS).] Development may deviate from this schedule due to the occurrence of changed economic conditions, lawsuits, strikes or other unforseen [sic] circumstances.