Goodwin v. The Fishing Vessel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that petitioners seeking discovery under Rule 27 must (1) “furnish a focused explanation of what they anticipate any testimony would demonstrate”; (2
• observing that Rule 27(a) “cannot be used to discover evidence for the purpose of filing a complaint”
• pronouncing that Rule 27 testimony cannot be used for the purpose of filing a complaint
• citing, inter alia, Ash v. Cort, 512. F2d 909, 912 (3d Cir. 1975) (“Rule 27 is not a substitute for discovery. It is available in special circumstances to preserve testimony which could otherwise be lost.”)
• “Such testimony cannot be used to discover evidence for the purpose of filing a complaint.”
• A petitioner “must make an objective showing that without a Rule 27 hearing, known testimony would otherwise be lost, concealed or destroyed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).