Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-05229
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Corallo v. NSO Group, Judge Seeborg granted Corallo’s motion to serve the NSO Defendants by email after courier service failed.
Francesco Corallo and the NSO Defendants—NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited—were affected by the ruling on how the summons and complaint could be served.
What happened
In Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, Francesco Corallo asked to serve NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited by email. A previous attempt using Federal Express or another international courier failed because the delivery address was in a restricted government area.
The court found that email service was allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Corallo had made reasonable efforts to serve the defendants by more conventional methods, Israel had not objected to service by email under the Hague Convention, and the defendants’ active website made it reasonable to presume the documents would reach them.
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the motion for leave to serve the defendants by email at the addresses listed on their website. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing because the motion could be decided without oral argument.
The detailed version
- Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 3:22-cv-05229
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
Francesco Corallo moved for permission to serve the summons and complaint on NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited by email. The opinion refers to those entities collectively as the “NSO Defendants.” Corallo previously received permission to serve them by Federal Express or another international courier, but the documents were returned undelivered with a note stating, “RTS Restricted Export RTS.” Federal Express advised Corallo that the delivery address was in a restricted government area that couriers could not enter. Corallo stated that he had no other physical address for the NSO Defendants and proposed using info@nsogroup.com and media@nsogroup.com, which were listed on the defendants’ website.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits service in a foreign country by means not prohibited by international agreement and directed by the court. The method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably likely to give the defendant notice. The court explained that email service may satisfy due process when the plaintiff shows that the email is likely to reach the defendant. The decision to allow an alternative method of service rests in the district court’s discretion, and a plaintiff does not have to try every permissible method before requesting an alternative method.
Application and ruling
The court determined that the requirements for email service were met. Israel is a signatory to the Hague Convention and had not objected to service of process by email. Corallo had made reasonable efforts to serve the NSO Defendants through more conventional methods without success. Because the defendants actively updated their website, the court found it reasonable to presume that the proposed email service would reach them. The court therefore granted Corallo’s motion for leave to serve the NSO Defendants by email. The court also determined that the motion could be decided without oral argument and vacated the February 9, 2023 hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.