Q: Motion for protective order is not proper responsive pleading, to motion to compel authorization execution?
Motion to compel execution of authorization of medical information was filed by defendant. Motion for protective order is not proper responsive pleading, to motion to compel authorization execution?
A:
Under California law, a motion for a protective order is generally not considered a proper responsive pleading to a motion to compel the execution of an authorization for the release of medical information. Here's why:
1. Purpose of a motion to compel: A motion to compel is filed when a party seeks to obtain discovery from another party who has failed to respond or has provided inadequate responses to discovery requests. In this case, the defendant is seeking to compel the plaintiff to execute an authorization for the release of medical information.
2. Purpose of a motion for a protective order: A motion for a protective order is typically filed by a party seeking to limit or prevent discovery based on various grounds, such as undue burden, expense, or the need to protect privileged or confidential information.
3. Proper response to a motion to compel: The proper response to a motion to compel is usually an opposition brief, in which the responding party presents arguments and evidence to support their position that the requested discovery should not be compelled. This opposition should address the specific reasons why the responding party believes the motion to compel should be denied.
4. Timing and procedure: A motion for a protective order is a separate motion and not a substitute for an opposition to a motion to compel. If a party wishes to oppose a motion to compel and seek a protective order, they should file an opposition to the motion to compel and a separate motion for a protective order, each addressing the specific issues and arguments relevant to the respective motions.
In summary, while a party may have grounds to seek a protective order related to the requested discovery, a motion for a protective order is not the proper responsive pleading to a motion to compel the execution of an authorization for the release of medical information under California law. The responding party should file an opposition to the motion to compel, presenting arguments and evidence to support their position.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
