Morris v. Abdirahman

Morris v. Abdirahman · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · August 6, 2025 · No. 24-13044

Summary

This United States District Court order addresses a defendant's motion for an order to show cause regarding plaintiffs' failure to comply with subpoena requests for medical and insurance records. The magistrate judge denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the defendants failed to properly serve the subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 by not first attempting personal service. The court ordered the defendants to file written documentation demonstrating diligent attempts at personal service by a specified deadline before they may refile their motion.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Writing for the Court
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
August 6, 2025
Docket number
24-13044
Procedural posture
Defendants' motion to show cause denied
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

service of processcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether service of subpoenas under Rule 45 requires personal service and whether alternative means are permissible without prior personal service attempts

Holdings

  1. Rule 45(b)(1) requires personal service of a subpoena; alternative means are permissible only after a diligent effort to effectuate personal service has failed

Key quotations

Rule 45(b)(1) requires the party serving the subpoena to deliver a copy to the person—or here, the entity—named therein. (*1)
The alternate means [of service] must be reasonably calculated to achieve actual delivery. (753-54)

Factual background

Plaintiffs Juanita Morris and Kevin Morris sued arising from a car accident on March 23, 2024. Defendants served subpoenas to multiple entities for records, alleging compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, but the court found service defects.

Procedural history

Defendants removed the case from state court on November 18, 2024, the district judge referred discovery matters to the magistrate, plaintiffs amended the complaint on January 24, 2025, and defendants moved for an order to show cause regarding subpoena compliance, which was denied.

Remand instructions

Defendants must submit in writing by August 13, 2025 documentation showing attempts to personally serve the subpoenaed entities; if such attempts were made and were unsuccessful, the court may permit refiling of the motion to show cause.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…