Q: Why both overlapping pleadings in parallel would be appropriate?
What would be reasoning behind filing opposition in response to motion to compel authorization for release of records, and separately filing motion for protective order!
A:
Under California law, filing overlapping pleadings in parallel, such as an opposition to a motion to compel authorization for release of records and a separate motion for a protective order, may be appropriate in certain circumstances for a few key reasons:
1. Covering all bases: By filing both pleadings, the party is ensuring they are fully advocating their position and raising all relevant arguments. The opposition allows them to directly respond to and argue against the points raised in the motion to compel. The separate motion for protective order allows them to proactively seek the court's protection and make an affirmative case for why the records should not be released.
2. Different legal standards: The legal standards for opposing a motion to compel and for seeking a protective order may be slightly different. Filing both pleadings allows the party to tailor their arguments to the specific standards relevant to each request for relief.
3. Fallback position: If the court denies the motion for protective order, the opposition to the motion to compel still provides a fallback position arguing the records should not be released. This essentially gives two opportunities to prevent disclosure of the records.
4. Creating a complete record: Parallel pleadings create a more complete record of the party's position for the court's consideration and for any potential appeal. It demonstrates the party has fully presented its arguments against disclosure through all procedural vehicles available.
5. Timing: The timing for opposing a motion to compel may be different than the timing for bringing a motion for protective order. Parallel pleadings avoid any potential issues with deadlines or waiver.
So in summary, overlapping parallel pleadings, while not always necessary, can be an appropriate strategy to fully advocate a party's position, address different legal issues and standards, provide a fallback position, create a complete record, and avoid timing problems when trying to prevent the disclosure of records. The specific reasons and strategic considerations will depend on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
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.
