Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC v. West

Background

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, former counsel for Defendant Kanye West, individually and doing business as “Yeezy Tech,” asked for an extension of time to serve West with the Court’s November 30, 2022 order granting counsel’s request to withdraw. Counsel also asked for permission to serve West by alternative means. Counsel reported sending process servers to addresses it previously knew West to frequent, trying to coordinate service through one of West’s representatives, and attempting to contact West directly by text message.

Alternative service

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allows service on an individual under the law of the state where the federal court is located. New York law permits a court to authorize another method of service when the usual methods are impracticable, meaning not reasonably workable under the circumstances.

Judge Torres found that counsel had not provided enough facts to show that personal service was impracticable. The efforts described did not establish diligent attempts to locate West. The court also noted that counsel referred to two possible California addresses associated with West but did not state whether it had attempted personal service at those addresses.

The court further held that counsel’s proposed alternative service raised due-process concerns. Although West was aware of the lawsuit and the withdrawal motion, counsel did not explain whether the proposed mailing addresses were places where West lived or worked, or how the addresses were associated with him. The proposal therefore did not show a sufficient likelihood that West would receive the documents.

Rulings

The court granted former counsel’s request for an extension of time to serve West. It denied, without prejudice to renewal, the request for permission to use alternative service. By February 15, 2023, counsel was required either to personally serve West with the withdrawal order or to supplement its request for alternative service as directed by the order.

The court also granted counsel’s request to file its supporting declaration under seal and in camera, meaning privately for the court’s review. The court found that the declaration contained communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, and that the interests supporting restricted filing outweighed the presumption of public access. The court also excused counsel from serving the declaration on the other parties or their lawyers. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 73 and 74.