Boudreau v. Petit et al

Filing 175

ORDER denying 121 Motion to Compel; denying 129 Motion to Compel.Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 121, 129) are denied without prejudice. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on 9/24/2024. (Saucier, Martha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
JASON BOUDREAU,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN PETIT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

C.A. No. 17-301WES

ORDER REGARDING FIRST SUBPOENA TO RHODE ISLAND
STATE POLICE
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel the Rhode Island State
Police (“RISP”) to comply with his “first subpoena.” ECF Nos. 121, 129. Plaintiff represents
that he chose to “serve[]” this “subpoena” by mail 1 rather than by delivery in person as required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). ECF No. 129 at 1. In this instance, the result is confusion in that
RISP understood that Plaintiff had sent a Public Records request to which it has responded; it did
not understand that it had been served with a subpoena. See ECF Nos. 130, 130-1. Further,
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel but has not provided the Court with a copy of any duly
issued subpoena nor was any subpoena filed as required by the Court’s April 30, 2024, protocol.
Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff not only failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1)’s
requirement of personal service, as well as the April 30, 2024, protocol, but also has failed to
provide “effective notice,” which is required by the cases Plaintiff cites in arguing that the Court
should be flexible in applying the personal service requirement. See Bland v. Fairfax County,

Plaintiff appears to contend that, in his 2013 civil case, this Court ruled that service of subpoenas by certified mail
is permissible. The Court has scoured the record of the 2013 case; the issue was not directly addressed by the Court.

1

Virginia, 275 F.R.D. 466, 468 (E.D. Va. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the
Court notes that the documents identified in the public records response that RISP provided were
the focus of Plaintiff’s second subpoena to RISP, as to which the Court has granted in part and
denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Thus, it would appear likely that these motions to
compel a further response to the “first subpoena” are now moot.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 121, 129) are denied without
prejudice.
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
September 24, 2024

2