Minutes | Filed: September 11, 2026
| Entered: September 11, 2026
Moselle et al v. Kehoe et al
Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)) | Hawaii
3 - Set Ripe Deadline Order on Ex Parte Motion
EO: The Court reviewed 166 Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and the Dispositive-Motions Deadline (Motion for EOT) and 167 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and the Dispositive-Motions Deadline (Motion for Expedited Consideration).
Regarding the 167 Motion for Expedited Consideration, the Court notes that this Motion was improperly filed on an "ex parte" basis. The "ex parte" designation effectively seals the filing and precludes anyone other than the movant and the Court from viewing it on the docket. Accordingly, the Court disregards Plaintiff's use of the term "ex parte" and DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to remove the viewing restrictions on ECF No. 167 . No further action is needed by Plaintiffs regarding the "ex parte" designation.
As to the merits of the 167 Motion for Expedited Consideration, Plaintiffs request that this Court decide the Motion for EOT by Monday, September 14, 2026. Plaintiffs note that Defendants Dr. Brian Kehoe and National Center for Psychological Services, Inc. oppose the Motion for EOT, and request that these Defendants be required to respond to the Motion for EOT by tomorrow, September 12, 2026 - a Saturday. However, even if the Court were to direct Defendants to file a response on a Saturday, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C) would effectively push that deadline to Monday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) ("if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday"). Therefore, the Court DENIES 167 Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Consideration but sets an expedited briefing schedule on the 166 Motion for EOT.
Regarding 166 Plaintiffs Motion for EOT, the Court SETS the following briefing schedule: any opposition shall be filed by 9/16/2026 and any reply memorandum shall be filed by 9/18/2026.
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE WES REBER PORTER)
(jo)
Minutes | Filed: September 11, 2026
| Entered: September 11, 2026
Moselle et al v. Kehoe et al
Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)) | Hawaii
Link
EO: The Court reviewed 161 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Declaration; and 165 Defendants' Response. Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court's instructions to "contain sufficient information for the Court to determine the reasonableness of the work completed." Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel, ECF No. 155 at 15. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not include any argument regarding apportionment, as required.
Plaintiffs are therefore DIRECTED to file another supplemental declaration, which shall include a proper timesheet detailing the time spent on the Motion to Compel. This supplemental declaration need not include argument on apportionment, as the Court will decide the proper apportionment this time. This declaration shall be filed no later than 9/24/2026. By no later than 10/8/2026, Defendants' may file a response to this declaration. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to comply with these instructions may result in a denial of Plaintiffs' requested fees.
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE WES REBER PORTER)
(jo)