Nelson v. Argyropoulous
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-11413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Nelson v. Argyropoulous, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied Nelson’s request without prejudice but ordered Marshals service of a new subpoena for relevant employee information.
Anthony B. Nelson’s effort to obtain employee information was not compelled through his existing subpoenas, but he received a new court-issued subpoena process. JPS Petroleum Inc. was required to respond to the new subpoena or object within the periods set by the order.
What happened
In Nelson v. Argyropoulous, Anthony B. Nelson asked the court to require JPS Petroleum to produce the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees who worked at a gas station on September 18, 2017, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
The court found problems with Nelson’s subpoenas, including questions about who served them, whether the person receiving one was authorized to accept it, the unclear production deadline, and Nelson’s failure to serve JPS Petroleum with his motion. The court therefore denied the request without prejudice, meaning the request was not permanently barred, but found that the requested discovery was relevant and proportional.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the Clerk to issue a new subpoena and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve it on JPS Petroleum by certified mail. The order gave JPS Petroleum time to object and extended discovery for the limited purpose of pursuing this subpoena.
The detailed version
- Nelson v. Argyropoulous · No. 1:18-cv-11413
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
Anthony B. Nelson moved to compel compliance with subpoenas directed to JPS Petroleum, doing business as Sunoco, at 4090 Boston Road in the Bronx. He sought documents sufficient to show the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees who worked at the gas station on September 18, 2017, between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Reasons for Denying the Motion
The court concluded that Nelson had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs subpoenas. Nelson appeared to have personally served the December 10, 2019 subpoena through an individual identified as Shaw. Rule 45 requires service by someone at least 18 years old who is not a party to the case. The court also found it unclear whether Shaw was authorized to accept service for JPS Petroleum, particularly because Nelson said Shaw indicated that Nelson could not give him the subpoena.
The court further found that the subpoenas did not clearly state when and where the documents had to be produced. Nelson also attempted to serve a second subpoena by certified mail without first requesting permission for that method of service. Even assuming service by mail was proper, the court found that the subpoena had the same clarity problem and still had to be served by a non-party. The court also noted that Nelson had not served JPS Petroleum with a copy of his motion to compel.
Order for a New Subpoena
The court found that the requested discovery was relevant and proportional. Because Nelson was representing himself and was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue a new subpoena and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve it by certified mail.
The new subpoena was to require JPS Petroleum Inc. to produce documents showing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees who worked on September 18, 2017, between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Production was to take place at Nelson’s address, 21 days after service, at 5:00 p.m. The order stated that Nelson, as the requesting party, might have to pay production costs.
JPS Petroleum was given 14 days after service to move to quash the subpoena or otherwise object. If it did not object, it was required to produce the requested information within 21 days after service. The court extended the discovery deadline to March 17, 2020, only for this discovery, and directed Nelson to report on the subpoena’s response within the specified time.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Nelson’s motion to compel without prejudice and ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the new subpoena.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.