With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs apparently interpret “other curative measures” as referring exclusively to the sanctions contained in the order. The motions court, however, included “other curative measures” among the list of general remedies available to Ford and did not expressly limit the sanctions to those enumerated. We do not believe that the motions court intended to restrict the trial court’s access to such other sanctions as it might later deem appropriate. New evidence or developments could very well arise at trial, requiring further measures in response. Absent a clear indication that the motions court intended its order as a definitive and exclusive ruling on sanctions, we decline to give it such an interpretation. Cf. Best Place, 82 Hawai'i at 135-36, 920 P.2d at 349-50 (<HOLDING>). Thus, in this case, we hold that the “law of

A: holding that when a courts statements from the bench conflict with its written order the order controls
B: holding that the prior courts order by its conditional terms allowed subsequent modification by other courts
C: holding that under the doctrine of direct estoppel a law firms failure to appeal the bankruptcy courts earlier order barred it from challenging the courts holding on its appeal from a subsequent order
D: holding appealable a case dismissed in effect by the district courts order
B.