Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01451-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD CHARLES and THERESA M. 

BLAIR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-1451-DAD-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITION TO 

PERPETUATE TESTIMONY

(Doc. No. 26)

On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition to perpetuate testimony in this action. (Doc. 

No. 26.) The petition seeks to require depositions of defendants, including requiring defendants 

to produce witnesses to testify about the transfer and assignment of an unspecified “note and trust 

deed,” presumably to plaintiffs‟ property. Plaintiffs‟ complaint had alleged defendants violated 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to collect on plaintiffs‟ mortgage. On March 

4, 2016, this court granted defendants‟ motion to dismiss and plaintiff‟s complaint was dismissed 

by the court with prejudice. (Doc. No. 22.) 

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, seeking review of this court‟s order 

dismissing the complaint with prejudice, on the same day that they filed the instant petition. 

(Doc. No. 24.) Generally speaking, the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional 

Case 1:15-cv-01451-DAD-JLT Document 28 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

significance: “[I]t confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its 

control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer 

Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 

(9th Cir. 1993). Since plaintiffs are effectively seeking discovery in an action which this court 

has dismissed with prejudice (a decision plaintiffs are appealing), this court lacks a jurisdictional 

basis to hear their petition to perpetuate testimony.

In addition to the noted absence of jurisdiction, this court also observes that plaintiffs are 

not in the correct procedural posture and have not set out the necessary requirements to be 

granted the relief they seek in any event. Although not cited by plaintiffs, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 27 permits the taking of deposition testimony in advance of litigation, not after the 

matter has been concluded against them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1)(A) (requiring petitioner to 

show she “expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a United States court but cannot 

presently bring it or cause it to be brought”). “Courts have held that the requirements of Rule 

27(a) have been met where an individual seeking discovery: 1) shows he is acting in „anticipation 

of litigation in federal court‟; 2) „adequately explain[s]‟ the substance of the testimony he seeks to 

obtain; and 3) presents evidence that there is a „significant risk‟ that the evidence will be lost if it 

is not perpetuated.” Tennison v. Henry, 203 F.R.D. 435, 440 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Calderon 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. of Calif., 144 F.3d 618, 621–22 (9th Cir. 1998)). Not only 

have plaintiffs here already filed their action against defendants and had it dismissed with 

prejudice, they have made no showing of significant risk that any evidence concerning the 

purchase of their mortgage and home loan debt by some of the defendants, or the servicing 

thereof by others, will be lost if it is not perpetuated.

For all of these reasons, plaintiffs‟ petition to perpetuate testimony (Doc. No. 26) is 

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01451-DAD-JLT Document 28 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 2