Selee Corp. v. McDanal Advanced Ceramic Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117319 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2016):
2 CoorsTek also challenged Plaintiff's second subpoena [*12] on the grounds that delivery by Federal Express does not constitute service as contemplated by Rule 45. As noted most recently in Bland v. Fairfax Cty., Va., 275 F.R.D. 466, 468 (E.D. Va. 2011), circuits are split regarding whether service of a subpoena by Federal Express is proper, and the Fourth Circuit has not addressed the issue. This Court need not confront that issue here, however, because even if service effectuated through Federal Express was proper, the second subpoena was still untimely.
Share this article: