MacConnell v. FlashSynq AI, LLC
1:25-mc-00018
S.D. OhioSep 18, 2025Background
- MacConnell filed a pro se petition under Rule 27 seeking pre-litigation discovery to preserve FlashSynq-related materials, without asserting claims on the merits.
- Petition seeks broad production of FlashSynq-related ESI, communications, and documents, including dissolution, governance, IP, and ownership records, to prevent spoliation.
- Correspondence attached suggests potential interactions with Motiv Medical and Kathleen Moodie, and mentions Orin S. Kramer and related entities, though identities are vague.
- The petition is not verified and fails to identify any named adverse party or proper recipients; no service certificate is attached.
- The court analyzes Rule 27’s narrow scope, concludes no special circumstances justify pre-litigation discovery, and denies the petition along with related motions, closing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 27 petition was properly stated. | MacConnell seeks to perpetuate testimony pre-suit to preserve evidence. | petition fails to meet Rule 27 requirements and is improperly broad. | Denied; petition does not meet Rule 27 requirements. |
| Whether adverse parties and service were properly identified. | Targets various custodians affiliated with FlashSynq and Kramer; seeks broad discovery. | No identifiable adverse party or proper service; targets non-parties. | Denied; lacks identified adverse parties and proper service. |
| Whether pre-litigation discovery is permissible under Rule 27 in this case. | Discovery is necessary to prevent spoliation and preserve evidence. | Rule 27 is limited and does not authorize broad pre-litigation discovery absent special circumstances. | Denied; Rule 27 does not authorize this relief here. |
| Whether amendments or related Rule 26(d) motions are moot. | Seeks expanded scope and expedited relief for anticipated litigation. | Rule 26(d) does not permit pre-suit discovery; motions moot after denial. | Moot; all related motions denied. |
| Whether the case should be closed. | Immediate preservation is essential to protect rights. | No basis to grant relief; no action to continue. | Case closed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Boland, 79 F.R.D. 665 (D.D.C. 1978) (Rule 27 not a discovery tool to determine actions or identify parties)
- Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909 (3d Cir. 1975) (Rule 27 requires strict procedural safeguards and specific adverse-party identity)
- Petition of Gurnsey, 223 F.Supp. 359 (D.D.C. 1963) (Rule 27 limited to preventing loss of testimony; not for broad discovery)