Walton v. Smith

Opinion

1 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 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 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).