Court Opinion

ID: 9453303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:09:20.324672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:37.289717
License: Public Domain

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
Being uncertain as to exactly what disposition has been made of this case by the majority, I feel compelled to state briefly my own views in this matter.
The precise issue before the Court is whether on the facts of this case the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant appellants’ Rule 27 motions.1 As I read the majority opinion, however, this issue is never reached. The majority does intimate that if the notice and service requirements of subsection (a) (2) of Rule 27 had been complied with, denial of appellants’ motions would have constituted an abuse of discretion. With this position I fully concur, as the substantive prerequisites of subsection (a) (1) were clearly satisfied by appellants’ motion.2 The case presented for our determination, however, is a more difficult one, rendered so by appellants’ attempt to avoid the notice and service requirements of subsection (a) (2). Since I do not write here for the Court, I will not attempt to explore the heretofore unanswered questions concerning the degree of strictness with which the requirements of subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) are to be applied. I do feel, however, that these issues are clearly presented for determination by the facts before us, and that the failure of the Court to meet them has resulted in a disposition likely to cause confusion in future Rule 27 proceedings. I state merely that upon the facts of this case, the district court did not, in my mind, *152abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions.
Even though I would affirm the district court’s action, I join the majority in strongly urging the parties to reach an agreement which will make possible, through future court action, the perpetuation of the depositions already taken in behalf of appellants.

. See De Wagenknecht v. Stinnes, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 1957, 250 F.2d 414, 417; Mosseller v. United States, 2nd Cir. 1946, 158 F.2d 380, 382. See also Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp., 9th Cir. 1961, 297 F.2d 49, 57.

. See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 27.07-1 to 27.11-5, at 1819-28 (2d ed. 1966). The great majority of the cases dealing with Rule 27 have been concerned with the requirements of subsection (a) (1). Where Rule 27 motions have been denied, the reasons given have generally been either, (1) that no adequate showing was made that the petitioner could not commence the anticipated action at the present time, Application of Carson, E.D. Ill.1957, 22 F.R.D. 64; Petition of Johanson Glove Co., E.D.N.Y.1945, 7 F.R.D. 156, or (2) that the purpose of the petition was actually to obtain discovery rather than perpetuate testimony. Petition of Exstein, S.D.N.Y.1942, 3 F.R.D. 242; Petition of Ferkauf, S.D. N.Y.1943, 3 F.R.D. 89. Appellants’ motions suffer under neither of these infirmities.