Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 8/2/2005

In re Allegretti

Citations

  • 229 F.R.D. 93
  • 62 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 569
  • 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15885
  • 2005 WL 1804912

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.”)
  • A petitioner “must make an objective showing that without a Rule 27 hearing, known testimony would otherwise be lost, concealed or destroyed.”
  • “Such testimony cannot be used to discover evidence for the purpose of filing a complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haight

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named In re Allegretti

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.