BAAGHIL 221 v. MILLER (2019)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN ELECTRONIC FORM

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve copies of the summons and complaint in electronic form “on compact discs.” The plaintiffs assert that service of the pleadings in electronic format should be permitted by the Court because the expenses of printing, copying, and delivering paper copies of the voluminous pleadings (amounting to more than 2,300 pages) “would be grossly excessive and unduly burdensome” for plaintiffs' counsel and her clients. However, the plaintiffs have not identified any provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that permits the form of service they request, absent consent by the defendants. And the motion does not indicate that any defendants have consented to service of the summons and complaint in electronic form. The plaintiffs' motion therefore will be denied.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 states that “[a] summons must be served with a copy of the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). “The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Ibid. Ordinarily any paper served in connection with federal litigation must be delivered by either “handing it to [a] person” or conveying a printed copy by other permissible means, such as mailing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2). However, “Rule 5 ․ states that a paper can be served by ‘sending it by electronic means if the person consented in writing.’ ” Boustred v. County of Santa Cruz, No. 08-00546, 2008 WL 2156996, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) (emphasis added)); see also E.D. Mich. Electronic Filing Policies & Procedures R8(a) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(b) do not permit electronic service of process for purposes of obtaining personal jurisdiction, i.e., Rule 4 service. Therefore, service of process must be effected in the traditional manner.”). “[G]iven that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that ․ service in electronic form requires consent from the recipient ․ service of [a] complaint upon [a defendant is] defective” if the defendant did not consent to service in electronic form. Ibid. There is no indication in the record that any of the defendants consented to service by electronic means, or that plaintiffs' counsel has made any attempt to secure their consent to service in the proposed electronic format.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve the summons and complaint in electronic form (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.

DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge