Fl1
cn
flsT
'VT
T
T'KTTmT?T
0
'T'
A
'T'r?C'
T'TC
'VT)
Tf"V
r'
rT
Tn
m
uN
E1L1
VINIIEJJ
1J-1A1D
1J1)11'dL-J
L-'.JV1\1
FORTHE
WESTERNDISTRICT
OF
TEXAS
3
AUSTINDIVISION
cOUp
---
-
Mift
02
BOGDANRENTEA,
§
PETITIONER,
§
§
V.
§
§
FACEBOOK,INC.,
MARK
§
ZUCKERBERG,DAVID
A.
EBERSMAN,
§
DAVID
M.
SPILLANE, MORGAN
§
STANLEY
&
CO.,
LLP, J.PMORGAN
§
SECURITIES,LLC,AND GOLDMAN
§
SACHS&CO.,
§
RESPONDENTS.
§
ORDER
CIVIL NO.
A-12-MC-492-LYBeforethe courtin theabove styledandnumberedcause isPetitionerBogdan
Rentea's
VerifiedPetition
to
PerpetuateTestimony,filed
June
6,
2012
(Clerk's
Doe.No.
1).
Rentea
seeksanorder
allowing himtoproceedwith depositions
of
the
respondentsnamed
in
thisaction
in
order
to
perpetutatetheirtestimony
under
Rule27
of
the
FederalRules
of
CivilProcedure.Rentea
states
that
he
expects
to
be a
plaintiff
in
a
claim againsttherespondentsand thatthe requesteddiscoverywill assistindevelopingfactsessential tothe future
suit.
Rule
27
providesa mechanismfor a "petitioner
[who]
expects
to
be
aparty
to
an
action
cognizable
in
a
court
of
the
United
States"
to
deposeexpectedadverse partiesin order
to
"perpetuatetheir testimony."
FED.
R.
Civ.
P.
27(a)(1).This process
is
only availableto
a
petitioner
who
is
"presentlyunableto
bring
[the
action] orcause
it
to
be
brought"
and who demonstrates
"animmediateneed
to
perpetuatetestimony."Shore
v.
Acands,
Inc.,
644
F.2d
386,
388
(5th
Cir.1981)
(citingFED.R.Clv.P.27(a)(1)(A));Penn.
Mut.Ljfe Ins.
Co.
v.
United States,
68F.3d
1371,1374-75
(D.C.Cir. 1995).
Accordingly,
to
be grantedthe
relief
availableunderRule 27,"[t]he petitioner
Case 1:12-mc-00492-LY Document 3 Filed 06/13/12 Page 1 of 3
 
mustshowthat he
is
presentlyunable
to
bring theaction in
any
court,
state
orfederal, anywhere
in
the
United States"and
"that without
the
perpetutation
of
the
testimonyafailure or
delay
ofjustice
willoccur." In
re Eisenberg,
654
F.2d
1107,
1111(5th
Cir. 1981);
Shore
v.
Acands, Inc.,644 F,2dat
388.See
also
Ash
v.
Cort,
512
F.2d
909,912(3rd
Cir.1975)
(Rule
27
"is
available
in special
circumstances
to
preservetestimony whichcould otherwise
be
lost.").Rentea doesnot representto thecourtthatthere
is
any
urgencysurrounding hisdesire
to
deposethe respondentsor
that
he is unabletopresentlybringsuit
againstthe respondents.
Rather,he assertsthat he
"desires
to
conduct
actualformaldiscovery
through
oraldepositionsand requestsfordocuments"in order
to
determinewhether allegationssurrounding
Facebook's
Initial PublicOffering
(IPO)
contained
in
variousnewspaper
accounts
are,
infact, true.
If
so,
statesRentea, "theallegations
are a
clear basisfor claims
of
serious securitylaws
violations."
"[lit
is
wellsettled
that
Rule 27(a)
is
not a method
of
discovery
to
determinewhether
acause
of
actionexists;and
if
so,
againstwhomaction
shouldbe
instituted."
See
Inre Boland,
79
F.R.D.665,668 (D.D.C.1978)
(internalquotationomitted).
See
alsoPetition
of
the
State
of
N.C.,
68
F.R.D.410 (S.D.N.Y.
1975)
("Rule
27
petition
cannot beusedfor
the purpose
of
ascertaining
factsto be
usedin drafting
a
complaint.").BecauseRentea
seeks
not
to
perpetuatetestimony,
as
permittedunderRule
27,
but
rather
todetermine
whether
a
cause
of
actionexists,the court finds that hispetitionto perpetuate
testimonyshould be
denied.
2
Case 1:12-mc-00492-LY Document 3 Filed 06/13/12 Page 2 of 3
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more