Rodriguez v. City Of New York
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-10815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Castel authorized plaintiffs to serve nonparties with a subpoena by email.
The order affects the plaintiffs, the Bronx Documentary Center, and Michael Kamber. It permits the plaintiffs to serve the nonparties by email while preserving the nonparties’ rights to challenge the subpoena.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, plaintiffs sought photographs and video of a 2020 Bronx protest, including footage they believed showed Rodriguez’s arrest and handcuffing.
Plaintiffs said they had tried to serve a subpoena personally on Michael Kamber and the Bronx Documentary Center, but a process server could not access the Center and the Center’s hours were difficult to determine. They asked to serve the subpoena by email instead.
Judge P. Kevin Castel found good cause for email service and authorized plaintiffs to send the subpoena to Kamber’s email address, both to him individually and as the Center’s executive director. The order preserved the nonparties’ ability to ask the court to cancel or limit the subpoena, including based on journalist’s privilege.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10815
- P. Castel
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
The underlying case concerns a protest in the Bronx during the summer of 2020. Plaintiffs said documentarians from the Bronx Documentary Center, including Michael Kamber, filmed plaintiffs’ arrests with high-quality equipment. Plaintiffs believed the recordings included footage of the moment Rodriguez alleges an officer tightened her handcuffs as punishment.
Plaintiffs’ counsel said they had communicated with Kamber and the Center for months while trying to obtain the photographs and video. Counsel stated that Kamber and the Center refused to release the materials. Plaintiffs then attempted to serve a subpoena through a process server, but the process server was unable to enter the Center’s building. Counsel also stated that the Center’s hours were limited and unclear, while Kamber had previously responded to the email address counsel had for him.
Request for Alternative Service
Plaintiffs asked for permission to serve the subpoena by email rather than through personal delivery. The court discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which requires delivery of a subpoena to the named person, and decisions allowing alternative service when the method is reasonably designed to ensure that the recipient actually receives the subpoena. Those decisions generally consider whether the requesting party first made diligent efforts to serve the subpoena personally.
Ruling
Judge P. Kevin Castel found that good cause had been shown for alternative service. The court authorized plaintiffs to serve the Bronx Documentary Center and Kamber by sending the subpoena by email to Kamber’s address, both to him individually and in his capacity as the Center’s executive director.
The court stated that the subpoena was issued without affecting the nonparties’ rights to ask that it be canceled or limited, including on journalist’s-privilege grounds. The order addressed subpoena service and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.