Walton v. Smith

N.D. California

Walton v. Smith

DecidedOctober 7, 2025

Docket3:23-cv-04843

StatusUnknown

This text of Walton v. Smith (Walton v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walton v. Smith, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 DENISHA M WALTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04843-MMC 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' V. NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT 8 KEE ANA SMITH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 36 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Notice of Filing Supplemental Statement,” consisting 12 || of voluminous documents submitted in support of a “Petition to Perpetuate Testimony

2 13 || and Preserve Evidence [,] (Fed. R. Civ. P. 27)” contained therein.'

0 14 Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits, “before an action is filed,”

8 15 || the “filling of] a verified petition in the district court for the district where any expected

QO 16 || adverse party resides” for the purpose of obtaining an order “authorizing the petitioner to Cc @ 17 || depose ...named persons.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1). 18 Rule 27 does not, however, allow for the filing of such a petition in another case. 19 Accordingly, the above-referenced filing is hereby STRICKEN. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: October 7, 2025 INE M. CHESNEY 24 United States District Judge 25 ' Plaintiffs state they filed such petition because they “have a good-faith belief they possess a future qui tam cause of action.” (See “Petition to Perpetuate Testimony and 27 || Preserve Evidence” { |.) Litigants appearing pro se, however, like plaintiffs here, “cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States.” See Stoner v. Santa Clara 2g || Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 DENISHA M WALTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04843-MMC 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' V. NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT 8 KEE ANA SMITH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 36 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Notice of Filing Supplemental Statement,” consisting 12 || of voluminous documents submitted in support of a “Petition to Perpetuate Testimony

2 13 || and Preserve Evidence [,] (Fed. R. Civ. P. 27)” contained therein.'

0 14 Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits, “before an action is filed,”

8 15 || the “filling of] a verified petition in the district court for the district where any expected

QO 16 || adverse party resides” for the purpose of obtaining an order “authorizing the petitioner to Cc @ 17 || depose ...named persons.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1). 18 Rule 27 does not, however, allow for the filing of such a petition in another case. 19 Accordingly, the above-referenced filing is hereby STRICKEN. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: October 7, 2025 INE M. CHESNEY 24 United States District Judge 25 ' Plaintiffs state they filed such petition because they “have a good-faith belief they possess a future qui tam cause of action.” (See “Petition to Perpetuate Testimony and 27 || Preserve Evidence” { |.) Litigants appearing pro se, however, like plaintiffs here, “cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States.” See Stoner v. Santa Clara 2g || Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walton v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-smith-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack