Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vinci Brands v. Coach Services, Judge Figueredo authorized alternative subpoena service and denied Case-Mate’s protective-order request without prejudice.
Vinci Brands LLC may serve Kelly Maclean’s subpoena by certified mail and email. Case-Mate’s request to prevent service was denied without prejudice, and Ms. Maclean may raise objections after service.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc., Vinci asked to serve a subpoena on Kelly Maclean by certified mail and email after repeated unsuccessful attempts to serve her personally.
Case-Mate opposed the request, arguing that Vinci had not shown enough effort and that the subpoena sought irrelevant information. The court also considered Case-Mate’s request to prevent service of the subpoena.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Vinci’s request and denied Case-Mate’s protective-order request without prejudice. The order allows Ms. Maclean to raise objections in the appropriate court after receiving the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 27, 2024
Background
Vinci Brands LLC asked the court for permission to serve a subpoena on Kelly Maclean by certified mail, with a copy sent by email. Vinci’s process server had tried to serve Ms. Maclean at her home on April 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 25, 2024. The attempts occurred on weekdays and weekends and at different times of day.
Case-Mate argued that these efforts did not show reasonable diligence because the dates and times were not varied enough. Case-Mate also requested a protective order preventing Vinci from serving the subpoena, arguing that the requested discovery was irrelevant and amounted to a fishing expedition. The opinion refers to Ms. Maclean as a non-party subpoena recipient and does not further describe her connection to the case.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires delivery of a subpoena to the named person but does not expressly require personal service. The court concluded that Vinci had been reasonably diligent in attempting personal service. It also determined that service by certified mail, accompanied by email, was reasonably calculated to give Ms. Maclean notice of the subpoena and an opportunity to object.
The court rejected Case-Mate’s relevance and burden objections because a party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena directed to a non-party on those grounds. The court also noted that the parties would likely need more time for discovery regardless of the subpoena because the existing September 30, 2024 discovery deadline appeared infeasible.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Vinci’s request to serve the subpoena on Kelly Maclean by certified mail and email. The court denied without prejudice Case-Mate’s request for a protective order. The denial leaves Ms. Maclean free to raise objections to the subpoena in the appropriate court after she is served. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 469.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.