Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05180/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5180 September Term, 2019

1:19-mc-00057-UNA

Filed On: January 14, 2020

Matthew Jones,

Appellant

v.

United States of America,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 29, 2019,

and September 19, 2019, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying appellant’s petitions to take pre-litigation depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

27(a); Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1371, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

The district court properly concluded that appellant’s petitions failed to satisfy the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 because they were not verified, nor

did they demonstrate that appellant seeks to perpetuate testimony concerning a “matter

cognizable in a United States court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1). Finally, appellant has not

shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for

reconsideration and to reopen the case. See, e.g., Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d

1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 902-03

(D.C. Cir. 2014).

USCA Case #19-5180 Document #1824018 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5180 September Term, 2019

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #19-5180 Document #1824018 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 2 of 2