I've been contemplating the filing a motion to expunge in multiple cases that I'm dealing with. However, I'm under the presumption that it might be necessary for me to file a motion to re-open any cases that have been closed because there might be the argument that all closed cases require a motion to re-open before the filing of any one or more other motions in any closed case. That appears to me to be a matter of tradition susceptible to the fallacy of tradition, especially if I can assert my authority to make the argument that the re-opening of a legal case is irrelevant, such that the matter of concern is simply the expungement of the case and the motion being heard on is expungement rather than a re-opening making the requirement of a motion to re-open trivial. My suspicion is that a motion to re-open isn't necessary but instead what would be more necessary is me having the ability to assert through my authority the argument that the case should be expunged.
Why is it tradition that a motion to re-open a case occur before filing any other motion in said case?
The research that I've done to answer this question has been thinking about the question along with searching on Google for any answers that might exist. My thinking about the matter has brought upon me the view that the tradition exists because no one has had the authority to assert some kind of motion, such as expungement, otherwise without having first filed a motion to re-open.
