28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 27
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1937Note to Subdivision (a). This rule offers a simple method of perpetuating testimony in cases where it is usually allowed under equity practice or under modern statutes. See Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934); Todd Engineering Dry Dock and Repair Co. v. United States, 32 F.(2d) 734 (C.C.A.5th, 1929); Hall v. Stout, 4 Del. ch. 269 (1871). For comparable state statutes see Ark.Civ.Code (Crawford, 1934) §§666-670; Calif.Code Civ.Proc. (Deering, 1937) 2083-2089; Ill.Rev.Stat. (1937) ch. 51, §§39-46; Iowa Code (1935) §§11400-11407; 2 Mass.Gen.Laws (Ter.Ed., 1932) ch. 233, §46-63; N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §295; Ohio Gen.Code Ann. ((Throckmorton, 1936) §12216-12222; Va.Code Ann. (Michie, 1936) §6235; Wisc.Stat. (1935) §§326.27-326.29. The appointment of an attorney to represent absent parties or parties not personally notified, or a guardian ad litem to represent minors and incompetents, is provided for in several of the above statutes.Note to Subdivision (b). This follows the practice approved in Richter v. Union Trust Co., 115 U.S. 55 (1885), by extending the right to perpetuate testimony to cases pending an appeal. Note to Subdivision (c). This preserves the right to employ a separate action to perpetuate testimony under U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §644 (Depositions under dedimus potestatem and in perpetuam) as an alternate method.
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1946 AMENDMENTSince the second sentence in subdivision (a)(3) refers only to depositions, it is arguable that Rules 34 and 35 are inapplicable in proceedings to perpetuate testimony. The new matter [in subdivisions (a)(3) and (b)] clarifies. A conforming change is also made in subdivision (b).
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1948 AMENDMENTThe only changes are in nomenclature to conform to the official designation of a district court in Title 28, U.S.C., §132(a).
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1971 AMENDMENTThe reference intended in this subdivision is to the rule governing the use of depositions in court proceedings. Formerly Rule 26(d), that rule is now Rule 32(a). The subdivision is amended accordingly.
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1987 AMENDMENTThe amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.
COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES-2005 AMENDMENT The outdated cross-reference to former Rule 4(d) is corrected to incorporate all Rule 4 methods of service. Former Rule 4(d) has been allocated to many different subdivisions of Rule 4. Former Rule 4(d) did not cover all categories of defendants or modes of service, and present Rule 4 reaches further than all of former Rule 4. But there is no reason to distinguish between the different categories of defendants and modes of service encompassed by Rule 4. Rule 4 service provides effective notice. Notice by such means should be provided to any expected adverse party that comes within Rule 4.Other changes are made to conform Rule 27(a)(2) to current style conventions.Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Only style changes are recommended in the published draft.
COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES-2007 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 27 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES-2009 AMENDMENT The time set in the former rule at 20 days has been revised to 21 days. See the Note to Rule 6.