Last week, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle filed a lawsuit in a Los Angeles court over alleged invasion of privacy from the paparazzi. Now, a legal expert is speaking out to reveal the real reason that Harry and Meghan filed this lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed on the royals’ behalf by high-power celebrity attorney Michael J. Kump, who told Fox News in a statement that the filing was the result of alleged “serial intrusions on the privacy of a 14-month-old child in his own home,” as well as “the desire and responsibility of any parent to do what is necessary to protect their children from this manufactured feeding frenzy.”

Meghan and Harry allegedly decided to file the lawsuit after seeing a photo of their young son Archie in their yard being offered to various media outlets.

“Every individual and family member in California is guaranteed by law the right to privacy in their home. No drones, helicopters or telephoto lenses can take away that right,” Kump said. “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are filing this lawsuit to protect their young son’s right to privacy in their home without intrusion by photographers, and to uncover and stop those who seek to profit from these illegal actions.”

The lawsuit was filed against three different John Doe defendants in the hopes of identifying the photographer who took the picture. High-profile lawyer Tom Lallas of Levy, Small and Lallas in Los Angeles is now weighing in on the case, and his take on it is interesting, to say the least.

“I don’t want the validity of their claims to get lost in the shuffle and layered with many nuances but who are they going to win against?” he said. “It’s like scheduling a heavyweight fight, but not inviting the other boxer into the ring.”

He went on to describe the invasion of privacy lawsuit against three John Doe defendants as both “extremely unusual” and “extraordinary.”

“We studied the complaint and it is extremely unusual. And by that, I mean the complaint doesn’t name any specific defendant – either an entity or an individual,” said Lallas. “This is the first time I’ve ever seen this in 45 years of practicing law.”

Lallas explained that the case is “extraordinary” because the American legal system is based on an adversarial system, meaning there are at least two parties involved, making up a plaintiff group and a defendant group.

“The purpose of this adversarial system is for the parties to be invested in having legitimate legal rights that they will protect and enforce before there are any matters that are prosecuted in a civil action,” the lawyer said. “Here, we don’t have that. There are the plaintiffs, the Duke and the Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan, but there are no defendants at the table.”

“So what do we have? In my judgment, it’s always important to evaluate what is the objective of the plaintiffs in a litigation,” Lallas continued. “The first question is, ‘Do they really expect to obtain a judgment and recover [photos] from paparazzi?’ And as a trial lawyer, my answer would be a resounding, ‘No. No way.'”

In the end, Lallas thinks that Harry and Meghan have “no reasonable expectation,” and that this is just a “fishing expedition.” He further explained:

This is the quintessential fishing expedition because if you believe the plaintiffs and their attorney in this case, they have filed a civil action without naming a specific defendant to try to take discovery and how would they do that?

“They would serve subpoenas and notices of deposition and try to take depositions of third parties in order to unmask the paparazzi or parties responsible for putting the drones over the backyard of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but without having any of the customary protections in a civil action where there are two parties in an adversarial context to have legitimate interests and rights to protect.

So I’ve never seen a more obvious fishing expedition, which is derivative of the fact that there are no specific defendants who are named in this action.”

He added that Harry and Meghan are executing a “calculated strategy” to allegedly create a “chilling effect” and send a message to the paparazzi. It remains to be seen how this will work out for them.