Most federal courts have interpreted FRCP’s requirement of, “delivering a copy to the named person,” as requiring in-person service via hand delivery. However, this strict hand-delivery requirement is not universal. For example, in the 2005 case of Hall v. Sullivan, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland held that service via FedEx complied with FRCP 45 with respect to a subpoena duces tecum. As stated in the opinion:
“[W]here the only thing that is at stake is the production of documents, and the subpoenaed party need only object to shift the burden on the requesting party to file a motion to compel production of the requested documents, [the court sees] no reason to require in-hand delivery of subpoenas . . . . [I]t is undisputed that [the subpoenaed party] actually received the subpoena, and that upon receipt, was able to object and timely file a motion to quash . . . . It follows that delivery of the subpoena via Federal Express comported with the service requirements of Rule 45.”