Rule 1.721.Common law preserved
Division VII: Depositions and Perpetuating Testimony · Last amended February 15, 2002 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1.721
Plain-English Summary
Rules 1.722 through 1.728 create a defined procedure for perpetuating testimony before a lawsuit even begins — useful when a witness's testimony might otherwise be lost before there is a pending case in which to take a deposition. Rule 1.721 makes clear that adopting this procedure does not crowd out or cap the older common-law remedy of an independent action to perpetuate testimony; the two exist side by side.
That matters most when the newer framework's specific requirements do not fit a party's situation. Rule 1.721 preserves the common-law route as a separate, less-defined alternative that remains available even though Rules 1.722 through 1.728 now supply a structured procedure for the same underlying need.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does “perpetuating testimony” mean?
Preserving a witness's testimony before there is a pending lawsuit, typically because the testimony might otherwise be lost before a case is filed.
Do Rules 1.722 through 1.728 replace the older common-law method for perpetuating testimony?
No. Rule 1.721 states that they do not limit the court's common-law power to entertain actions to perpetuate testimony.
Why would someone use the common-law route instead of the procedure in Rules 1.722 through 1.728?
Rule 1.721 does not spell out specific circumstances, but preserving the common-law option means it remains available where the newer procedure's particular requirements do not fit the situation.
Is Rule 1.721 itself a detailed procedural rule?
No. It is a short clarifying rule that preserves an alternative common-law avenue alongside the specific procedure set out in Rules 1.722 through 1.728.
Where do the specific requirements for a common-law action to perpetuate testimony come from, since Rule 1.721 doesn't spell them out?
Rule 1.721 does not set out any requirements of its own. It preserves the common-law action as an option, leaving its specific requirements to case law and the court's own powers rather than to a rule provision.