Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Falstaff Parking Partners, LLC and defendant The Travelers Indemnity Company jointly filed a motion to compel a non-party, JMK5 Falstaff Hotel LLC, to comply with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena. The parties alleged that JMK5 failed to file timely written objections or a motion to quash and had failed to produce the requested documents and electronically stored information. They sought an order requiring JMK5 to produce all responsive materials within 14 days.
The subpoena was served on May 6, 2026, at a Friendswood, Texas address by delivering a copy to “JMK5 Falstaff Hotel LLC C/O Danielle, Assistant.” JMK5 did not oppose the motion to compel, and the plaintiffs and defendant proceeded jointly to seek enforcement of the subpoena through the court.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison denied the motion to compel, finding that the parties had failed to demonstrate proper service of the subpoena on JMK5. The court held that without proof of proper service on the non-party, it lacked authority to compel compliance. The court determined that service to “Danielle, Assistant” was insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which governs service requirements that Rule 45 incorporates by reference.
Applying Rule 4(h)(1)(B), which requires service on an LLC to be made to “an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process,” the court found no evidence that Danielle held such a position. The court further consulted Texas law under Rule 4(e)(1), which provides that members and managers of an LLC are agents authorized to receive service, but found no showing that “Danielle, Assistant” was a member or manager of JMK5. The court concluded that “there is not a shred of evidence” supporting proper service and that it was “powerless to compel JMK5 to do anything” until proper service was effectuated.
Key Takeaways
- Proof of proper service is a jurisdictional prerequisite to compelling a non-party to comply with a subpoena—lack of proper service is fatal to a motion to compel.
- Service of a Rule 45 subpoena on a non-party LLC requires compliance with Rule 4’s standards, which demand service on an authorized agent, officer, or manager.
- Serving documents on an assistant or employee without establishing that person’s authority to accept service is insufficient, even if service occurs at the entity’s business address.
- Federal courts may apply state law to determine who qualifies as an agent authorized to receive service of process for non-party entities.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in civil litigation. Even when both the plaintiff and defendant agree on the need to compel discovery, the court cannot bypass jurisdictional requirements. Parties cannot assume that service to a receptionist, assistant, or low-level employee will satisfy Rule 4’s requirements, no matter how convenient.
The opinion serves as a reminder to litigators that careful attention to service of process rules is essential when issuing subpoenas to non-parties. Parties must identify the proper agent to receive service and document that person’s authority, or risk having their motion to compel denied entirely. This holding protects non-parties from potentially invalid subpoenas and ensures that the judiciary maintains control over the subpoena process through strict adherence to procedural rules.