Ahmed v. Taylor

Background

Ishtiaq Ahmed alleged that he was falsely accused of assaulting Adil Khan on June 4, 2021, and was later arrested and released. The parties conducted discovery, which closed on March 29, 2024, after the deadline had been extended four times.

Ahmed sought permission to depose Raja Azad Gul, a non-party witness, if the defendants intended to call Gul at trial. Ahmed also asked to serve Gul with a deposition subpoena by certified mail after several unsuccessful efforts to contact and personally serve him. The defendants opposed the requested relief.

Legal standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 generally requires delivery of a subpoena to the person named in it. The court explained that alternative service, such as certified mail, may be allowed when the requesting party shows diligent efforts to complete personal service.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a discovery schedule may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court considered whether trial was imminent, whether the request was opposed, whether reopening discovery would prejudice the defendants, whether Ahmed had acted diligently, whether the need for discovery was foreseeable, and whether the requested discovery was likely to produce relevant evidence.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Ahmed had made five service attempts—four at a business address and one at a home address—but had not shown enough diligence to justify alternative service by certified mail. The court also noted that Ahmed did not provide information confirming that the home address was Gul’s last known home address. The request for alternative service was therefore denied.

The court reached a different conclusion on reopening discovery. Although the defendants opposed the request and Ahmed had been trying to serve Gul since before discovery closed, the court found that there was no trial date, no identified prejudice to the defendants, and that Ahmed had acted diligently overall. The court considered Ahmed’s telephone and text-message efforts, his counsel’s communications with Gul, and the attempts to serve Gul at his apparent business and home addresses. Because Gul was described as a witness to events in the complaint, the court found that his deposition could produce relevant evidence.

Disposition

The court stated that Ahmed’s request was granted in part and denied in part. It granted Ahmed’s conditional request to reopen discovery: if the defendants list Gul as a witness in the joint pretrial order, Ahmed may depose him before trial, but only after properly serving him with a deposition subpoena. It denied Ahmed’s request for alternative service without prejudice. Judge Jennifer E. Willis directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry for Ahmed’s request.