Paul J. Van Osselaer of Austin (Van Osselaer, Cronin & Buchanan) and Robert Slovak of Dallas (Gardere Wynne Sewell) ? who are opposing counsel in a case on my docket ? jointly submitted the following:

?Paul Van Osselaer of Austin ? was hoping that the alternative relief would be granted just to figure out what is going on. He submitted this entry as a potential winner as the most confusing document title, deleting the actual names of the parties to protect the guilty. It?s from a filing in the U.S. District Court in San Antonio:

?DEFENDANT?S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF?S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPLICATION FOR HEARING.?

Now, my approach to making sense of stuff like this when I convert legalese to plain language...

It has to be legible, so I convert to "title" capitalization:

?Defendant?s Reply To Plaintiff?s Response To Defendant?s Motion To Strike Plaintiff?s Reply To Defendant?s Opposition To Plaintiff?s Motion For Protective Order, Or, In The Alternative, Application For Hearing.?

Then I break it up into its components:

Defendant?s Reply To
Plaintiff?s Response To
Defendant?s Motion To Strike
Plaintiff?s Reply To
Defendant?s Opposition
To Plaintiff?s Motion
For Protective Order,
Or, In The Alternative,
Application For Hearing

This usually helps a lot, but not here!

This is when you need to know the local procedural rules to decide how far you can go in simplifying this title, or the actual request being made.

Here is a stab in the dark:

Application For Hearing
on Plaintiff?s Motion
For Protective Order