Young et al v. Pleasant Valley School District et al

Filing 200

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion 189 to Compel is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on 4/29/11. (rc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA YOUNG, WILLIAM YOUNG,
III, and PATRICIA YOUNG, on behalf of
her minor daughter,
Plaintiffs
v.
PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, JOHN J. GRESS, Principal,
in his individual capacity, and BRUCE H.
SMITH, JR.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:07-CV-854
(Chief Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs delivered a number of subpoenas to Defendant Pleasant Valley School
District’s district office on February 24, 2011. (Doc. No. 189-2.) Rather than personally serving
the witnesses in question, some of whom are employed by the District, Plaintiffs “left [the
subpoenas with] Shirley at [the] front desk.” (Id.) Plaintiffs now move for an order to compel
Defendants to deliver the subpoenas to the witnesses. (Doc. No. 189.)
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny person who is at
least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering
a copy to the named person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The majority of courts, including courts
in this circuit, interpret this rule as requiring personal service of a subpoena. James Wm. Moore,
et al., 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 45.21 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.); In re Johnson & Johnson, 59
F.R.D. 174, 177 (D. Del. 1973) (service on corporation’s registered agent does not satisfy service
requirement for employee of corporation); see also Vitale v. Repetti, No. 05-5685, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 43839, at *5-6 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (mailing subpoenas insufficient under Rule

1

45(b)(1)); Parker v. Doe, No. 02-7215, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23498, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21,
2002). It is undisputed that Plaintiffs did not effect personal service on these witnesses. Rather,
the subpoenas were “left [with] Shirley.” (Doc. No. 189-2.) As such, service of the subpoenas
was defective. Further, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants to effect service on the
witnesses in question must also fail. The Court finds no basis in law, and Plaintiffs identify
none, justifying an order deputizing Defendants as Plaintiffs’ process server.
ACCORDINGLY, on this 29th day of April 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. No. 189) is DENIED.

S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2