Q: Hearing on motion for protective order, filed in response to motion to compel authorization of medical records

A: Under California law, when a motion to compel is filed and a hearing is already scheduled, the motion for a protective order filed in response to the motion to compel should generally reference the same hearing date.

Here's the rationale:

1. Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2025.420 allows a party to file a motion for a protective order in response to a motion to compel further responses to a deposition notice.

2. Similarly, CCP § 2031.060 allows a party to file a motion for a protective order in response to a motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand.

3. The motion for a protective order should be filed with reasonable promptness after the motion to compel is served to ensure that both motions can be heard at the same time.

4. Referencing the same hearing date in the motion for a protective order allows the court to consider both motions together, as they are related and arise from the same discovery dispute.

5. Having both motions heard at the same time promotes judicial efficiency and allows the court to resolve the discovery dispute in a comprehensive manner.

However, if there is insufficient time to file the motion for a protective order before the already-scheduled hearing on the motion to compel, the responding party may need to request a continuance of the hearing to allow both motions to be heard together.

In summary, when a motion to compel is filed and a hearing is already scheduled, the motion for a protective order filed in response should generally reference the same hearing date to allow both motions to be heard together, promoting efficiency and comprehensive resolution of the discovery dispute.