Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02068/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02068-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

cal 

1 06cv2068

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Norma Merrell, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. Dennis Lambert, Robert Rides At The

Door, A.K.A. Robert “Smokey” Doore, a.k.a.

Robert J. Doore, Sr., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv2068 IEG (AJB)

Order Denying Petition to Perpetuate

Testimony Before Action under Rule 27 

[Doc. No. 1]

Plaintiff moves for an Order granting her Petition to Perpetuate Testimony Before Action under

Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff timely served the expected adverse parties

and a hearing was held on the record on November 8, 2006, before Judge Battaglia. Appearing on

behalf of the Petitioner was Lyndsay Heller, Esq. and J.E. ‘Ring’ Smith, Esq. No appearance was made

by either of the adverse parties named in the Petition. Based upon the petition, arguments of counsel

and for the reasons set forth herein, the Petition is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

I. The Petition

A. Facts Alleged

Petitioner alleges a course of fraudulent and unlawful conduct by two adverse parties, A. Dennis

Lambert (President of Glacier International Depository, Ltd. (“GID”) and Robert J. Doore, Sr.

(Chairman of GID) to entice Petitioner, as well as others, to deposit or invest funds in exchange for

either a leveraged position and/or stock and an ownership position in GID and then provided nothing for

their deposit or investment. GID is a banking depository licensed and authorized by the State of

Case 3:06-cv-02068-IEG-AJB Document 11 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 Application of Eisenberg, 654 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1981).

2 06cv2068

Montana, located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. Petitioner will seek to recover $379,000 together

with any appropriate penalties, fees and costs.

During the course of the hearing, Mr. Smith informed the Court that he had a telephone

conference call with attorney Channing Harterlius representing adverse party Mr. Doore, who was

present during the call. Mr. Doore was vague as to whether or not he had in his possession documents

being sought by way of the Petition. Mr. Ring subsequently sent a letter to both adverse parties

summarizing the telephone conversation with Messrs. Harterlius and Doore, and outlining the documentation sought, but has received no response as of the date of the hearing from either adverse party.

Additionally, Mr. Smith informed the Court that GID was no longer in business and that the

corporate charted had been revoked by the State of Montana. 

B. Testimony Sought

Petitioner seeks accounting books and records, GID Corporate records including minutes of

meetings, resolutions, financial reports, solicitations, stock shares certificates, authorizations for

warrants, records reflecting non-transfer of promised GID stock, information concerning all bank

accounts where investors’ and depositors’ funds were placed. Petitioner also seeks oral testimony from

the two named individuals regarding the alleged fraudulent course of conduct. During the hearing,

Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Smith, produced a list of documents sought by the Petitioner to the Court for

inspection.

II. Discussion

There is no absolute entitlement to early discovery under Rule 27. Application of Eisenberg, 654

F.2d 1107 (5th Cir.1981). “Abuse of the rule by potential plaintiffs, who might try to use it as a means

of discovery to enable them to draw a complaint seems to be avoided by the requirement of Rule 27 that

the party seeking the deposition be unable to bring the suit or cause it to be brought.” State of Nev. v.

O'Leary, 63 F.3d at 936. Refusal to permit discovery under Rule 27 prior to the institution of suit is a

ruling with only temporary application as the Petitioner is free to seek discovery once the anticipated

action has been filed.1

Case 3:06-cv-02068-IEG-AJB Document 11 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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

 Petition of Ernst, 2 F.R.D. 447 (S.D. Cal 1942)(Petition must demonstrate a danger of losing

the evidence by delay, but ordinarily a showing that the petitioner is unable to bring the expected action

is sufficient to warrant an order fro perpetuation of testimony.); Petition of Gurnsey, 223 F. Supp 359 (

D.C. Cir. 1963)(Rule 27 does not provide a method of discovery to determine whether a cause of action

exists and if so, against whom the action should instituted.); Petition of State of N. C., 68 F.R.D. 410

(S.D.N.Y.1975)(granting of petition not warranted where petitioner was unable to bring the underlying

action because it lacked facts necessary to frame a complaint).

3

Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909 (3rd Cir. 1975)(Rule 27 was not intended to serve as a substitute for

discovery, but is available only in special circumstances to preserve testimony or evidence that could

otherwise be lost.); Lombardo’s Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1985).

4

 Additionally, the Court notes that by serving the Petition on the adverse parties, the Petitioner

has effectively made a preservation request which will provide other remedies once suit is filed against

these adverse parties if they fail to preserve all documents and information relevant to the impending

litigation. 

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\Merrell\06cv2068.Order.Pet.Rule27.11.8.06.wpd 3 06cv2068

The Petition is therefore DENIED on the grounds that Petitioner is seeking this information in

order to plead her allegations with the requisite specificity2

 and states only conclusory statements

without specific facts that would tend to indicate that the evidence sought to be perpetuated is at risk of

loss.3

 The Court finds no merit to Petitioner’s assertion that evidence sought to be perpetuated is in any

danger of being lost.4

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that this case is not one which is appropriate to

grant a petition to perpetuate testimony as Petitioner’s requests are beyond the intended scope of Rule

27 and the Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing of good cause necessary to warrant this

extraordinary remedy. The Petition is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2006

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02068-IEG-AJB Document 11 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 3