MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Michael Melohn (“Petitioner”) seeks, by Amended Petition filed on July 27, 2020, an Order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 27 and 34 commanding Sy Stern (“Stern”), Alfons Melohn (“Melohn”), Akiva Feinsod (“Feinsod”), Ezra Beyman (“E. Beyman”), Yaakov Beyman (“Y. Beyman”), David Teiler (“Teiler”), Eli Kunstlinger (“E. Kunstlinger”), Robert Kunstlinger (“R. Kunstlinger”), Sima Weintraub (“Weintraub”), and Rabbi Mayer Zaks (“Zaks,” and collectively, “Respondents”) “to submit to a deposition or, alternatively, to produce documents” identifying unknown individuals. (Doc. 27, “Am. Pet.” 1). Petitioner lists also “John Does 1-20″ in the caption as Respondents but does not seek an Order as to them. (Id.). Three opposition memoranda have been filed: (1) Stern and Melohn (collectively, “Melohn Respondents”) filed theirs on August 7, 2020 (Doc. 31, “Stern Br.”); (2) Feinsod filed his on August 7, 2020 (Doc. 32, “Feinsod Br.”); and (3) E. Beyman, Y. Beyman, and Teiler filed theirs on August 31, 2020 (Doc. 40, “Beyman Br.”).1 In addition, on August 28, 2020, Melohn Respondents filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Doc. 37; Doc. 38 “Sanctions Br.”). On September 17, 2020, Melohn Respondents filed a letter seeking a conference “to discuss the disposition of this matter” because Petitioner had not sought an appearance of any kind with the Court. (Doc. 41 at 2). The Court granted the application by endorsement on September 18, 2020 and scheduled a telephone conference for October 21, 2020. (Doc. 42). Counsel for Petitioner and Appearing Respondents participated in that conference. The Court engaged the parties on the merits of the petition, directed the parties to file letters “providing case law” supporting their interpretation of Rule 27, and — although the time to respond had long since expired — granted Petitioner an extension of time within which to oppose the motion for sanctions. (See Oct. 21, 2020 Min. Entry). Shortly thereafter, the parties filed their letters regarding applicable precedent (Doc. 68; Doc. 69) and Petitioner filed his opposition to the sanctions motion (Doc. 70, “Sanctions Opp.”) in accordance with the Court’s directive. By letter dated November 3, 2020, Melohn Respondents sought leave to file a reply in further support of their motion for sanctions, citing the discovery of new evidence. (Doc. 71). The Court denied the application by endorsement dated November 5, 2020. (Doc. 72). Nothing further has been filed on the docket. For the reasons set forth below, the relief sought in the Amended Petition is DENIED, the motion for sanctions is DENIED, and this petition is DISMISSED. BACKGROUND Petitioner is one of Melohn’s children. (Am. Pet. 2). Petitioner maintains that he “intends to commence an action against Respondents…for…civil RICO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., fraud, conversion, constructive trust, and money had and received, the scheme by which Respondents intended to harm Petitioner and Respondent Alfons Melohn.” (Id. 4). Petitioner claims that Respondents implemented this scheme by “induc[ing], coerc[ing], extort[ing], and/or manipulat[ing] Respondent Alfons Melohn to” take certain actions to Melohn’s own detriment such as, inter alia, transferring money, commingling funds, cashing government bonds, and “hiring family members for ‘no show’ jobs…who were paid from corporations owned by Alfons Melohn.” (See id.
1(a)-(f)). Petitioner maintains that from 2013 to the present, Respondents worked in conjunction with unknown “John Doe Respondents,” that Respondents will not freely identify these unknown collaborators, and that he “requires the[ir] true identit[ies]…and the particularities surrounding the transactions…in order to properly commence the action” he anticipates. (See id.
