Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80118/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80118-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF 

PRO-SYS CONSULTANTS AND NEIL 

GODFREY.

Case No. 16-mc-80118-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

SERVE SUBPOENA BY ALTERNATE 

MEANS

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Applicants Pro-Sys Consultants and Neil Godfrey (together, “Pro”) previously filed an ex 

parte application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for permission to issue a subpoena to depose JeanLouis Gassée (“Gassée”) in connection with an antitrust proceeding between Pro and Microsoft 

currently pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. (Dkt. No. 1.1) The Court 

granted Pro’s application on June 3, 2016. (Dkt. No. 3.) Despite numerous attempts, Pro has had 

difficulties personally serving Gassée with the subpoena and thus seeks leave from the Court to 

serve him by alternate means; namely, by delivering the subpoena via overnight courier to 

Gassée’s residence. (Dkt. No. 4.) After carefully considering the arguments and briefing 

submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and

GRANTS Pro’s motion for leave the subpoena by alternate means.

BACKGROUND

The Court previously discussed the factual background of the case in its order granting 

Pro’s Section 1782 application and incorporates that discussion herein. (Dkt. No. 3 at 1-2.) Since 

the Court granted Pro’s application in June 2016, Pro has made various attempts through a process 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:16-mc-80118-JSC Document 6 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

server and through counsel to contact Gassée and serve him with a subpoena. From June 7, 2016 

through July 7, 2016, the process server attempted eight different times to serve Gassée at his 

residence in San Francisco, California. (Dkt. No. 4-1.) During two of those attempts, on June 13 

and 18, 2016, the process server in fact spoke to Gassée over the phone; each time Gassée 

indicated he was out of town and would return the following week, though Gassée never followed 

up with the process server. (Id.) Pro’s counsel also spoke with Gassée on the phone on June 9, 

2016, letting Gassée know that Pro intended to serve him with a subpoena. (Dkt. No. 4-2 ¶ 4.) 

Gassée indicated that he was unwilling to accept service of the subpoena. (Id. ¶ 5.) Because of its 

inability to personally serve Gassée, Pro now moves the Court for leave to serve Gassée by 

delivering the subpoena via overnight courier to his residence. (Dkt. No. 4.)

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[s]erving a 

subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person[.]” The Court previously addressed Rule 

45’s “delivering” requirement:

The majority of courts understand “delivering” to require personal 

service of the subpoena. See Rijhwani v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 

Inc., No. C 13-05881 LB, 2015 WL 848554, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

28, 2015) (citation omitted); [S.F. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. 

Spencer, No. C 04-04632 SI, 2006 WL 2734284, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 25, 2006)] (citations omitted); Newell v. Cnty. of San Diego, 

No. 12cv1696-GPC (BLM), 2013 WL 4774767, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

Sept. 5, 2013) (citations omitted); see also Wright & Miller, 9A Fed. 

Practice & Proc. § 2454 (3d ed. 2015) (“The longstanding 

interpretation of Rule 45 has been that personal service of the 

subpoena is required.”). Thus, “contrary to the practice with regard 

to the service of a summons and complaint, it is not sufficient to 

leave a copy of the subpoena at the dwelling place of the witness . . . 

[and] “unlike service of most litigation papers after the summons 

and complaint, service on a person’s lawyer will not suffice.” 

Wright & Miller, supra, § 2454 (collecting cases). 

There appears to be a growing—although still minority—trend 

among courts to allow substitute service of a Rule 45 subpoena, 

such as mail delivery, so long as the method of service is reasonably 

calculated to provide timely, fair notice and an opportunity to object

or file a motion to quash. See id.; see, e.g., Toni Brattin & Co. v. 

Mosaic Int’l, LLC, No. 15-mc-80090-MEJ, 2015 WL 1844056, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015) (granting motion to serve Rule 45 

subpoenas by certified mail); Green v. Baca, No. CV 02-204744, 

2005 WL 283361, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2005) (same 

(collecting cases)). To that end, “[c]ourts have permitted parties to 

Case 3:16-mc-80118-JSC Document 6 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

serve Rule 45 subpoenas by alternative methods of service[,]” in 

particular, service by mail. Toni Brattin & Co., 2015 WL 1844056, 

at *3 (citations omitted). Courts are more inclined to grant such 

alternative service where the serving party has provided sufficient 

evidence of its earlier diligence in attempting to effectuate personal 

service. Id. (collecting cases); see, e.g., id. (authorizing service by 

mail where the serving party made earlier attempts to make personal 

service, failed, and sought in advance leave of court to serve by 

alternative service).

Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., No. 15 MC 80110 HRL JSC, 2015 WL 5782351, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 5, 2015). 

Here, the Court is satisfied that Pro has been diligent in its efforts to effectuate personal 

service of the subpoena on Gassée. As noted above, a process server attempted service at 

Gassée’s residence on eight separate occasions, and Pro’s counsel also spoke with Gassée, who 

indicated that he would not accept service of the subpoena. Based on these efforts, it appears that 

Gassée is attempting to evade personal service. “Under these circumstances, the Court finds that

Rule 45 should be construed as provided in Rule 1 ‘to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action,’ which would allow for alternate means of service.” Toni Brattin, 

2015 WL 1844056, at *4 (citation omitted). Indeed, the Court “agrees that the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure should not be construed as a shield for a witness who is purposefully attempting 

to evade service.” Id. at *3. Accordingly, Pro is permitted to serve Gassée by delivering the 

subpoena via overnight courier to his residence.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Pro’s motion for leave to serve its 

subpoena on Gassée by alternate means. Pro shall serve a copy of this Order on Gassée along with 

the subpoena.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-mc-80118-JSC Document 6 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3