von Brandenfels v. Roomster Corp
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-00411
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In von Brandenfels v. Roomster Corp., Judge Van Keulen granted Roomster’s request for alternative subpoena service by email through the plaintiff.
Roomster Corp., Alexander Martin von Brandenfels, and third-party White were affected. Roomster received permission to use alternative subpoena service; the plaintiff was required to provide the subpoena to White and confirm that delivery within 24 hours.
What happened
In von Brandenfels v. Roomster Corp., Roomster asked to serve a subpoena on third-party White by emailing it to the plaintiff, who was residing with White. The subpoena sought testimony at a deposition and documents.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 generally requires delivering a subpoena to the person named. But courts may allow another method when appropriate, and the court considered difficulties with personal service during COVID-19 restrictions in California.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Roomster’s application. She ordered Roomster to email the subpoena to the plaintiff for delivery to White, and ordered the plaintiff to confirm within 24 hours that he had provided it to White.
The detailed version
- von Brandenfels v. Roomster Corp · No. 5:20-cv-00411
- Susan Van Keulen
- May 15, 2020
Background
Roomster Corp. filed an ex parte application seeking permission to use an alternative method to serve a subpoena on third-party White. The subpoena sought White’s testimony at a deposition and production of documents. Roomster proposed emailing the subpoena to Alexander Martin von Brandenfels, whom the opinion states was residing with White. Roomster also asked the court to require the plaintiff to confirm within 24 hours that he had given the subpoena to White.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) states that serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the person named in it. The opinion explains that most courts understand delivery to require personal service, but courts have also allowed alternative service methods. Courts are more likely to allow alternative service when the serving party provides evidence of earlier diligence in attempting personal service. The court also considered impediments to personal service caused by COVID-19 restrictions in California.
Ruling
The court granted Roomster’s application. It ordered Roomster to serve third-party White by emailing the subpoena to the plaintiff. It ordered the plaintiff to confirm to Roomster within 24 hours of receiving the email that he had provided the subpoena to White. The order addressed the method of serving the subpoena and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.