Knopf v. Esposito
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:17-cv-05833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Knopf v. Esposito, Judge Cote granted in part email service of three deposition subpoenas and ordered counsel to state whether she would accept service for one witness.
Norma and Michael Knopf, Michael Sanford, Michael Phillips, Matthew Bronfman, and Lorraine Nadel were affected by the subpoena-service directives and deadlines.
What happened
In Knopf v. Esposito, Norma and Michael Knopf asked to serve three deposition subpoenas by email on Michael Sanford, Michael Phillips, and Matthew Bronfman. They sought to take the depositions between November 16 and 18, 2020.
The court granted the request in part. It allowed the Knopfs to serve Sanford by email and Bronfman through an email to Lorraine Nadel, after the Knopfs had tried other methods. Nadel had to tell the Knopfs’ counsel whether she would accept service for Phillips, and any objection to the order had to be filed by November 12 at noon.
Judge Denise Cote explained that the subpoena rule does not expressly require hand delivery when another method is likely to provide timely notice. The order also required the Knopfs’ counsel to email it immediately to Sanford and Nadel.
The detailed version
- Knopf v. Esposito · No. 1:17-cv-05833
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 11, 2020
Background
Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf asked for permission to serve three deposition subpoenas by email on Michael Sanford, Michael Phillips, and Matthew Bronfman. They sought to take the depositions between November 16 and 18.
The Knopfs stated that Sanford refused to accept service by email. A process server attempted to serve him at his residence three times—on October 31, November 2, and November 4—and left a copy of the subpoena on the residence’s door on November 4. The Knopfs also said that Lorraine Nadel did not respond to inquiries about accepting service for Phillips and Bronfman. Nadel had instructed the Knopfs’ counsel not to contact Bronfman directly. On November 6, subpoenas for Phillips and Bronfman were delivered and mailed by first-class mail to Nadel’s law firm.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 generally requires delivery of a subpoena to the person named in it, along with attendance fees and mileage when the subpoena requires attendance. The court explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has not ruled that Rule 45 always requires personal service. District courts in that circuit have accepted alternative service when it is reasonably calculated to provide timely actual notice. The court also emphasized that the Federal Rules should be applied to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of cases and should not protect a witness who is deliberately trying to avoid service.
Ruling
The court granted the Knopfs’ application in part. It ordered as follows:
- The Knopfs could serve Sanford by email because they had already made three attempts to serve him at his residence and had left a subpoena there. - Nadel had to tell the Knopfs’ counsel by November 12 at 10:00 a.m. whether she would accept service for Phillips. - The Knopfs could serve Bronfman through an email to Nadel because they had already hand-delivered his deposition subpoena to Nadel’s law firm. - Any objection to the order had to be filed by November 12 at noon. - The Knopfs’ counsel had to email the order immediately to Sanford and Nadel.
The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying claims in the case. It addresses the method of serving deposition subpoenas.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.