...and it is Brad C's job to be rational on behalf of his clients and to provide them with sound, rational legal advice.
If the Anthonys had a justifiable belief that they were in any danger, such that any reasonable person would feel that they were in danger (reasonability is typically the test in the courts, "would a reasonable person in the Anthonys shoes be fearful," etc.,) Brad C. should have no problem drafting a Motion For Protective Order that a judge would sign. It's just not that complicated to do.
Specific people don't have to be named - but you do have to provide enough of a rational basis for your clients' fear/beliefs. I once had a client who kept getting horrible phone calls and messages during the pendancy of a case. She was a witness only, so I filed for a protective order on her behalf re: all discovery directed at her, which allowed her to speak without fear that anyone other than the parties to the case would read/hear what she'd said, and said order remained in place throught the pendancy of the proceedings. Since the only people who were, per the court order, to be privy to her statements/deposition were the parties themselves, if she continued getting harrassing/obscene calls about what she said it would be really clear that one of the parties was doing it or had leaked it, which would lead to court ordered subpeonas for everyone's phone records, etc. Have to say, there was nary a PEEP in her direction after that.
It is true that if all someone has is their personal beliefs and cannot with some degree of specificity explain the basis for said beliefs, such as someone stalking them, making threatening phone calls, etc., it does lead to the conclusion that it's simply the person's paranoia, which means that such a motion would be denied, and properly so. Personal paranoia is never a basis for impeding the movement of a civil matter in our legal system (though it might qualify one for a trip to see a psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist...
)
