Opinion ID: 6333370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Service of Subpoenas

Text: Section 1782 orders are generally governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. § 1782 (“To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see Gov’t of Ghana v. ProEnergy Servs., LLC, 677 F.3d 340, 343 (8th Cir. 2012). Though the district judge can prescribe different rules, the court here agreed that the discovery sought “shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” J.A. 67; see 28 U.S.C. §1782 (noting that the district court “may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing”). The district court’s order authorized Newbrook “to use and serve a subpoena on the Discovery Targets” to compel discovery. J.A. 67. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs a subpoena’s service, and “requires delivering a copy to the named person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). But for a corporation or other artificial entity, the entity is not a “person” on whom service can be directly made. See 9 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s 8 We also note that the order to comply could be read to suggest that Sharma must individually comply with the discovery required from him. But before the court may order discovery from Sharma, he must be served. 14 Federal Practice - Civil § 45.21 (2021). A plaintiff cannot hand a document directly to an abstraction, so that abstraction must be served through an agent. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 135 n. 13 (2014) (“A corporation is a distinct legal entity that can act only through its agents.”) (quoting 1 William Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 30, at 30 (Supp. 2012–2013)). But the question remains to which agent the subpoena must be “delivered,” and how. Fortunately, the Federal Rules give us some guidance by showing how to serve corporations generally. Rule 4(h)(1) identifies two ways a domestic corporation may be served with a summons and complaint: (A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant. Rule 4(e)(1) permits an individual to be served in a manner permitted by “state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Maryland Rule 2-124(d) first provides for service upon a corporation “by serving its resident agent, president, secretary, or treasurer.” But “if a good faith attempt to serve the resident agent, president, secretary, or treasurer has failed, service may be made by serving the manager, any director, vice president, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer, or other person expressly or impliedly authorized to receive service of process.” Maryland Rule 2-124(d). 15 The second service method for a corporation also expressly permits “delivering” the complaint to certain officers or agents: “an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). So to satisfy Rule 45’s mandate of “delivering a copy to the named person” when the “person” is a corporation, there must be delivery to an appropriate agent, as identified by Rule 4(h). Some courts have ventured beyond that required by the Rules to permit service by any means that provides actual notice. Doing so, they have reasoned, conserves resources that would be wasted if compliance with the Rules was required. Stiles v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:20-mc-002, 2020 WL 1976426, at  (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2020); see Greenway Enterprises, Inc. v. CSI Eng’g, P.C., No. AW-07-2762, 2008 WL 11509733, at  (D. Md. May 23, 2008). And we do not doubt that broader means of service would save resources— though perhaps imposing other costs. But regardless of its wisdom, Rule 45 requires that the subpoena be served by “delivering a copy to the named person.” Actual notice with no delivery to the named person fails to satisfy the Rule’s demands. 9 9 While we hold that there must be delivery, we need not decide here “how” that delivery must occur. The predominant view appears to be that the delivery must be directly delivered by a process server personally (often referred to as “personal service”). See Charles A. Wright & Arthur A. Miller, 9A Federal Practice and Procedure § 2454 (3d ed. 2021). But at least one Circuit Court has suggested that delivery under Rule 45 may be accomplished through certified mail by the United States Postal Service. See Ott v. City of Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552, 557 (7th Cir. 2012) (finding certified mail satisfies Rule 45’s delivery requirement because the postal agent qualifies as “the person at least 18 years of age” such that the postal proof-of-delivery record shows a “delivery”); see also Hall v. Sullivan, 229 F.R.D. 501, 503–06 (D. Md. 2005). Certified mail was not used here so we need not delve into whether delivery methods such as certified mail to a corporate agent would suffice. 16 The district court did not address whether an appropriate agent—as identified in Maryland Rule 2-124(d) or Federal Rule 4(h)(2)—was served in this case. This inquiry depends on applying agency law to the circumstances of service here. And we leave that in the district court’s capable hands.