Doe v. The Federal Republic of Germany
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In John Doe v. Germany, Judge Stein denied Doe’s request for court assistance serving Germany and the Bundeskriminalamt because Doe had not disclosed his identity or met service requirements.
John Doe’s request for court assistance with serving the Federal Republic of Germany and the Bundeskriminalamt was denied.
What happened
In John Doe v. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Bundeskriminalamt of the Federal Republic of Germany, John Doe asked the court to send service documents to the defendants under the law governing service on foreign states. He argued that service through the Hague Convention was not possible while protecting his anonymity.
The court had previously required Doe to disclose his identity to the court under seal before seeking judicial relief. Doe had not done so and said he could not follow the court’s instructions for making that disclosure. The court also explained that the plaintiff—not the court—is responsible for serving process and that Doe had not supplied the copies, envelopes, receipts, translator’s affidavit, and postage funds required for the requested method of service.
United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein denied Doe’s request for court assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). The order did not decide the underlying claims against Germany or the Bundeskriminalamt.
The detailed version
- Doe v. The Federal Republic of Germany · No. 1:23-cv-06395
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
John Doe asked the court to assist with serving Germany and the Bundeskriminalamt of the Federal Republic of Germany under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3), part of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s procedures for serving a foreign state. Doe had previously sought alternative service under § 1608(a)(1), court transmission of documents under the Hague Convention through § 1608(a)(2), and court assistance under § 1608(a)(3).
In earlier orders, the court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not permit the proposed alternative service against a foreign state or its subdivision, denied the request for court transmission of Hague Convention documents, and required Doe to disclose his identity to the court under seal before obtaining judicial relief. Doe later said he was conditionally willing to disclose his identity but did not do so. In his March 28, 2024 letter, he said he could not comply with the court’s instructions because of the risks he believed disclosure created.
Reasons for the Decision
Judge Stein first denied the request because Doe had still not disclosed his identity to the court under seal. The order stated that Doe was not entitled to judicial relief in the case unless and until he made that disclosure.
The court also rejected Doe’s argument on the merits of the service request. Doe contended that the current version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) made the court, rather than the plaintiff, responsible for serving process. The court held that the 2007 changes to that rule were stylistic and did not change the rule’s basic principle that the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served. The court further explained that Rule 4(m) concerns the timing of service, not who is responsible for carrying it out.
The court assumed, without deciding, that Doe could proceed to § 1608(a)(3) without first attempting service under § 1608(a)(2). Even on that assumption, the court found that Doe had not met the requirements for § 1608(a)(3). He had not provided the required copies, envelopes, completed return-receipt forms, translator’s affidavit, or funds for postage and return-receipt fees. The court therefore denied Doe’s request for court assistance in effecting service. The order addressed service procedure and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.