Souza v. Thurston

Summary

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena, holding that the district court's factual finding—that the petitioner had the respondent's residential address when he served the subpoena by certified mail—was clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. The court found this error constituted an abuse of discretion, as the district court relied on it to conclude that certified mail did not reasonably ensure receipt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The Tenth Circuit declined to address alternative grounds for affirmance (whether Rule 45 permits service by certified mail, whether the subpoena violated the 100-mile rule, or whether the respondent received it), leaving those issues for the district court on remand.

Holdings

1. The district court's factual finding that Souza had Thurston's residential address at the time he mailed the subpoena was clearly erroneous because it was unsupported by the record. The inference from the certificate of service was implausible, and there was record evidence suggesting otherwise.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in finding that Souza had Thurston's residential address at the time of mailing the subpoena.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel based on that finding.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded