Securities and Exchange Commission v. David
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:19-cv-09013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In SEC v. David, Judge Rakoff permitted the SEC to serve nonparty witness Carl Dawson’s deposition subpoena again by email.
The Securities and Exchange Commission may serve nonparty witness Carl Dawson with the deposition subpoena by email again; the order also concerns the defendants, who consented to the request.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. David, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked to serve nonparty witness Carl Dawson with a deposition subpoena by email. The SEC said Dawson had previously agreed to email service, had recently communicated through the same address, and could not be personally served despite repeated attempts.
The SEC also told the court that Dawson had not responded to its request to accept the new subpoena by email and that attempts to find him at known residential and work addresses had failed. The defendants consented to the SEC’s request.
Judge Rakoff permitted the SEC to serve Dawson with the subpoena by emailing it to him again. The order addressed service of the subpoena and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. David · No. 1:19-cv-09013
- Jed Rakoff
- Feb. 12, 2020
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court for permission to use alternative service—service by a method other than personal delivery—to serve nonparty witness Carl Dawson with a deposition subpoena. The subpoena required Dawson to testify at a deposition scheduled for February 20, 2020, in Los Angeles.
In its February 7, 2020 letter, the SEC represented that Dawson had previously agreed by telephone to accept a deposition subpoena by email at a specified address. Dawson later used that address to communicate with SEC counsel on February 3, 2020. The SEC said it had repeatedly tried to contact Dawson by telephone and email about rescheduling his deposition and had unsuccessfully attempted personal service at two known addresses. The SEC also provided two older possible addresses, but reported that Dawson did not appear to live or work at either location. The defendants consented to the request.
Ruling
Judge Jed S. Rakoff stated that, based on the SEC’s representations, alternative service by email was warranted. The court permitted the SEC to serve Dawson with the deposition subpoena by emailing it to him again. The order did not rule on the merits of the SEC’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.