United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
JOHN SOUZA, in his capacity as custodian of ELEVATE, INC., Movant,
W. WRIGHT THURSTON, Respondent.
Benson District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) District Judge Dee Benson
referred this case for consideration. This case was involves a case in
the District Court of Nevada, No. 2:17-cv-01924.
appears John Souza (Souza), in his capacity as custodian of
Elevate, Inc., obtained a subpoena in the Nevada action for
W. Wright Thurston (Wright), seeking corporate and banking
records relating to Elevate, Inc. in the fall of
2017. According to the subpoena, Wright resides
in Midway, Utah. The subpoena required production of said
documents in “Atlanta, Georgia” by
“November 9, 2017.” Souza served the subpoena via
certified mail to a P.O. Box. Pending before the court is
Souza's Motion for Order to Show Cause and to Compel
Compliance with Subpoena. Wright has moved
to quash the subpoena. The court finds Wright's arguments
persuasive and thus DENIES Souza's motion.
45(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things at a
place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed or regularly transacts business in person[.]
Utah, where Wright resides, is more than 100 miles away from
Atlanta, Georgia, where the subpoena commands production of
the documents. In addition, it appears the first service
attempt was a P.O. Box address even though Souzas'
counsel has a residential address for Wright. Notably, there
does not appear to be binding precedent in the Tenth Circuit
favoring either hand-to-hand personal service or alternative
means of service. But this court has viewed service by
certified mail as a means of alternative service usually
granted via motion after some attempts by personal service
have proven unsuccessful. Here, the first attempt at
service was through certified mail at a P.O. Box, even though
counsel had a residential address. Under these
circumstances, alternative service would not be warranted.
Moreover, the 100 mile geographic limit set forth in Rule
45(c)(2) for production of documents is clearly exceeded
here, thus the motion to compel is DENIED.
 ECF No. 5.
 ECF No. 2-1.