The federal judge presiding over mammoth litigation surrounding the BP PLC oil spill will hold a hearing this week on whether to split the case into two tracks so government enforcement claims would be handled separately from lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs.

Both the Obama administration and the state of Louisiana support such a move, saying the claims to be made by the government, and the remedies available, differ substantially from what private plaintiffs are seeking. The government, which has yet to formally file suit, has already indicated it will seek relief under the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act. Private plaintiffs, including Gulf Coast residents and businesses affected by the spill, will seek damages under tort law in addition to the Oil Pollution Act.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana, who is handling the dozens of consolidated claims against the oil giant, is set to hold a hearing on the government track matter Wednesday.

Although BP has created a $20 billion compensation fund aimed at deterring lawsuits, it has not stopped numerous plaintiffs -- represented by some of the most prominent trial lawyers in the nation -- from filing suit.

Complicating matters, the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that has filed its own lawsuit against BP, has requested that it be part of the government track if Barbier decides to take that route. CBD attorney Charles Tebbutt said his organization's suit should be included in the government track because the claims are analogous to the civil enforcement action the government is expected to file.

"We are acting in the shoes of the government," he said. The group has the authority to do so under "citizen suit" provisions in the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act -- commonly known as the Superfund law -- and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, according to CBD's court filing.

The Obama administration, the state of Louisiana and BP have yet to take a position on whether CBD should be part of the government track. Spokesmen for all three declined to comment.

In its filing requesting a government track, the Obama administration conceded that there will be some overlap with the private plaintiffs' case on factual issues, but Justice Department attorney R. Michael Underhill argued that a separate track would allow the court to "protect the government's unique role under the relevant federal statutes." Certain "factual and legal" information could be shared, he added. Furthermore, the interests of the government "could depart markedly" from those of plaintiffs attorneys representing private interests, he added.

In a separate filing, the state of Louisiana argued that the failure to create a separate track "would not only be entirely inconsistent" with legal precedent but would also be "inefficient, potentially prejudicial to the state ... and contrary to the interests of justice."

The state has asked that one of the private attorneys it hired to assist on the case, Allan Kanner of New Orleans firm Kanner & Whitely, act as the main liaison between the court and the government plaintiffs.

Environmental law expert Albert Lin, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, said it "makes sense" for Barbier to order a separate track for government claims based on the fact that private plaintiffs are suing under different laws.

As for CBD's role, although the government has made it clear it plans to file a civil action against BP, Lin said the environmental group could be justified in thinking it needs to intervene because of a belief that the administration "won't hold BP's feet completely to the fire." In court, CBD could push some arguments that the government might not make, he added.