Q: Joinder of parties - federal court filing question. Motion to strike scenarios.

A: In your case, where an EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) complaint against a hospital includes a second claim under the CMIA (Confidentiality of Medical Information Act), the hospital's defense may indeed consider filing a motion to strike based on Rule 19 for failure to join a necessary party, in this case, the hospice to which identifiable medical information was disclosed. This hinges on whether the hospice's involvement is critical for the resolution of the case.

Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with the joinder of necessary parties. A party is considered necessary if, in their absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties, or if that party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in their absence may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest, or leave any of the existing parties at risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.

The court may rule such joinder as necessary or compulsory if these conditions are met. In your argument against the joinder of the hospice, focus on demonstrating that the hospice's involvement isn't essential for granting complete relief among the existing parties, and that their absence wouldn't leave the hospital or other involved parties open to multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Your approach in responding to a motion to strike for failure to join a party should be rooted in the specifics of Rule 19 and the unique facts of your case. Each scenario can differ significantly, so a careful analysis of the role and interest of the potential party in question is crucial. Consulting with an attorney experienced in federal court litigation can be very beneficial in such complex procedural matters.