Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01042
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nock v. Spring Energy, Judge Lehrburger granted Nock’s request to serve a subpoena by mail, email, and a company’s agent.
Robert Nock, Neil St. Louis, NSL Marketing, LLC, and the defendants in the underlying class action were affected by the order permitting alternative subpoena service.
What happened
In Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC, Robert Nock asked to serve a subpoena on witness Neil St. Louis and his company, NSL Marketing, LLC, using methods other than personal delivery. Nock said four attempts to serve St. Louis personally had failed.
Nock proposed serving NSL through its corporate service agent, sending the subpoena by certified mail to St. Louis’s Brooklyn residence, and emailing it to an address reflected in the defendants’ records. He argued these methods were likely to give St. Louis actual notice, and the defendants did not object.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the application. The order allowed service using the three requested methods. The order addressed subpoena service and did not decide the underlying claims in the class action.
The detailed version
- Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01042
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
Robert Nock is the plaintiff in a class action alleging that sales agents of Spring Energy RRH, LLC, RRH Energy Services, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC disguised telemarketing campaigns as door-to-door sales to avoid liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The opinion states that the defendants contend they did not authorize the alleged conduct and were innocent beneficiaries of the campaigns.
Nock sought testimony and documents from Neil St. Louis and NSL Marketing, LLC. He reported four unsuccessful attempts to serve St. Louis personally at his Brooklyn residence beginning February 16, 2024. The requested subpoena’s production deadline had passed, so Nock sought permission to serve a new subpoena by alternative methods. The defendants indicated that they did not object.
Request and Analysis
Nock asked to serve the new subpoena and a copy of the court’s order in three ways: through NSL’s corporate service agent, by certified mail to St. Louis’s residence, and by email to St. Louis’s Gmail address.
The opinion explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires delivery of a subpoena to the named person but does not require personal delivery in every circumstance. Courts may allow alternative service when it is reasonably calculated to give the witness actual notice and an opportunity to object. The court found the circumstances appropriate because Nock had made four unsuccessful personal-service attempts. It also found that service through NSL’s registered agent, combined with certified mail and email, was reasonably calculated to notify St. Louis. The opinion states that defendants’ records supported the residence and email address used for service and that NSL was a one-person corporation.
Ruling
The court granted the application for substitute service. It ordered that the subpoena be served as requested: on NSL’s corporate service agent, by certified mail to St. Louis’s Brooklyn address, and by email to the specified Gmail address. This was a discovery-related procedural ruling; the order did not resolve the merits of Nock’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.