§Why CasetextPricing

Ingenuity 13 LLC

MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of 8 Order granting Rule 27 Petition

22 Cited authorities

  1. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.

    370 U.S. 626 (1962)   Cited 23,530 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte

  2. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n

    514 U.S. 334 (1995)   Cited 788 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected

  3. Talley v. California

    362 U.S. 60 (1960)   Cited 325 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding anonymity protected under the First Amendment because forced "identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance"

  4. Merritt v. County of Los Angeles

    875 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 359 times
    Holding that the relation back provisions of state law, rather than federal law, govern § 1983 actions

  5. Osband v. Woodford

    290 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 209 times
    Holding that the district court did not err in denying motion for reconsideration of a magistrate's order

  6. Ash v. Cort

    512 F.2d 909 (3d Cir. 1975)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Rule 27 is not a substitute for discovery" but "is available in special circumstances to preserve testimony which could otherwise be lost"

  7. State of Nev. v. O'Leary

    63 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that Rule 27 is not appropriate where "the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief

  8. In re Petition of Allegretti

    229 F.R.D. 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the petitioners failed to set forth the substance of the testimony they expected to elicit from the proposed deponent where they said "very little" about the substance of the requested testimony and their conclusion as to the expected testimony "appear[ed] to be more aspirational than known"

  9. Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corporation

    297 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1961)   Cited 93 times
    Finding that "[t]he position of one who expects to be made a defendant is different . . . " in regard to an inability to bring a cognizable action, and holding that "such a defendant should be, and is, entitled to use the Rule, upon a proper showing, to preserve important testimony that might otherwise be lost"

  10. In re Petition of Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

    251 F.R.D. 97 (N.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 14 times
    Denying Rule 27 application in absence of, inter alia, reasons why requested testimony would be lost without pre-complaint deposition

  11. Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment

    28 U.S.C. § 636   Cited 499,657 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

  12. Section 551 - Protection of subscriber privacy

    47 U.S.C. § 551   Cited 1,487 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information" concerning cable subscriber without consent

  13. Rule 27 - Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 27   Cited 652 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing a procedure for preserving testimony before the bringing of a federal cause of action