In Re: Complaint of GEICO General Insurance Company
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for perpetuation of testimony # 1 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for approval of special process server # 2 is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/16/13. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
IN RE: GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE )
Case No. 4:13 MC 195 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on Petitioner’s motion for perpetuation of testimony through
pre-suit depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a). Rule 27 was drafted to
preserve testimony, not to serve as a substitute for general discovery. See Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d
909, 912 (3d Cir. 1975) (Rule 27 is “available in special circumstances to preserve testimony
which could otherwise be lost.”). Petitioner speculates that it may be named as a defendant in
future federal litigation, but it fails to offer any explanation why the testimony it seeks may be
lost if pre-suit discovery is not granted. I am not satisfied that allowing Petitioner to conduct
pre-suit depositions may “prevent a failure or delay of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(3). If and
when a suit is filed, Petitioner can simply proceed with discovery as contemplated by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for perpetuation of testimony [#1]
is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for approval of special process
server [#2] is DENIED as moot.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of May, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?