Do you think I made it up when I said I send out subpoenas to registered agents of service for corporations all the time?
That’s really great that you can link to the FRCP. R45 is about one page long, with entire books written about what it means. Plus hundreds of cases further clarifying what each word means. I assure you, subpoenas may be served upon registered agents of service at the Federal level.
Don’t make me cite case law for you. Trust me, I’m right, you’re wrong.
Fair enough. I’m perfectly aware that the rules have been expanded in various ways by the courts over the years. I assumed that since Rule 4 explicitly says you can serve a complaint on a registered agent of a corporation, and Rule 45 does not say you can do so with a subpoena, that the requirements for serving a subpoena were stricter and meant actual personal service.
I have to say I disagree with the implication that somehow it is immoral to not help someone serve a subpoena.
That’s his or her job, not mine, assuming of course that my job description does not include receiving such documents. From the point of view of the general employee, I don’t give a crap if the subpoena ever gets served or not. If it does or doesn’t, what happens from that is out of my control anyways.
I don’t see where the morality comes in.
I can see helping other kinds of people do their job, but that’s because of the ‘if it were me’ element. For instance, if you’re in a doctor’s office and someone asks you to translate an exchange between a doctor and patient, hell yeah I’d help. That’s because if I were the patient in that situation, I’d hope someone could jump in and help the doctor do his job.
But I can’t ever see someone saying “You know, I wish someone would have helped that server so that he could’ve hit me with that subpoena sooner”.
And keep in mind that the proper party to be served, and method of service, is going to depend on what kind of subpoena it is. If it’s just to some individual Joe who witnessed a car accident, there’s not a registered agent you can serve. If it’s a subpoena duces tecum directing some employee of a company to show up with documents, than the company’s registered agent might be the appropriate party. If it’s a subpoena for an opposing party in a lawsuit that’s already been filed, that’s generally going to go through the attorney for the party to be served.
We don’t really know enough about the OP’s subpoena to know whether the process server acted appropriately.
Fortunately(?), neither does the OP. I saw enough that I immediately figured out it was above my pay scale, then got my manager.
Unfortunately, counsel is actually in another building, though in hindsight I suppose I could have directed the person to that office. Though I’m not sure that’s appropriate for me to do either.
Did I mention that this kind of thing isn’t even vaguely anywhere in my job classification other than the words “Other duties as assigned”? Gah. My head hurts. This is an informative thread though and gives me a lot to think about: Thanks guys.
“Immoral” may be too strong a word, but it’s certainly dickheadish. It’s not your job to hold the door for that woman with her arms full of grocery bags, either, but it’s the right thing to do. I understand that your company probably doesn’t want to get served with a subpoena, but they probably don’t want to pay their taxes, credit people with the vacation time they’ve earned, or give refunds to people for defective products, either. But whether they want to or not, they’re required to, and helping them avoid that responsibility – even if you do so within the letter of the law – is lame.
If I hold a door open for someone, it’s only because I’d want someone to hold the door open for me if I were burdened with grocery bags- that’s why it’s the right thing to do(for me).
How does that relate to serving a subpoena? I guess what I’m saying is I have never been in the position of causing one to be served, and I have never had one served on me.
Since I have no experience with it one way or another, I default to the ‘being served is no picnic’ position. So, golden rule being in play, since I wouldn’t want to be served, I won’t help others get served(unless it’s my job).
The fact that everyone is saying that you can’t escape it anyways since it’ll be served one way or another just reinforces the idea that they don’t need my help to begin with. I’d be bringing crap down on myself from my boss for no good reason.
Two responses:
Obviously at some point everyone’s ethical system comes down to first premises. If yours is “I only do nice things for people if I expect that they, or someone in their position, will eventually return the favor,” you and I just part ways there. For example, I don’t ever expect to get breast cancer, but I run the breast cancer 5K most years. I don’t expect to be paralyzed, but I still hold the door for people in wheelchairs in my courthouse. I don’t expect my wife to beat me up, but I donate to the office’s domestic violence recovery project every year. Stuff like that. To me, it doesn’t really matter whether someone is going to do that same (or similar) favor for me in the future. It’s just a question of how much can I help them, and is what they’re trying to do a worthwhile thing, and how much of an inconvenience is it to me. To me it’s pretty clear that what the process server is trying to do is worthwhile (making the justice system work), the inconvenience to me is low, and the help to him is substantial. So the reasonable thing to do is open the door. (Especially since the company’s motivation to keep him out is pretty unjustifiable, at least IMO.)
Even within your Golden Rule framework, it’s all a question of how you look at it, or how much you abstract it. You say “I would hold the door for someone with groceries, because hopefully someday a different person will hold open a different door when I have groceries.” But then you say “I wouldn’t help a process server serve the company, because I wouldn’t want someone else to help a process server serve me.” But what if you framed it differently? What if the question was “Would you want someone to let you into a business if you needed to talk to someone inside?” Or what if the question was something more general, like “Would you want someone to lend you a hand with your work if they could?”
Sounds like the subpoena arrived before he could shred his files and delete some records. Now he can’t or he’ll be sent up the river for contempt of court or obstruction of justice if it’s a criminal complaint.
My advice:
Get your resume for his job into corporate headquarters right away because it sounds like whatever the subpoena was about involves him.
“Immoral” may be too strong a word, but it’s certainly dickheadish.
Short of actually breaking the law or covering up when your company breaks the law, as an employee I think you have a compelling ethical reason to do what is best for the company, despite how you feel about process servers, rule of law, etc. If it’s within your rights to let the server cool his heals on the sidewalk (and it sounds like it is*), I don’t see anything dickheadish about it. You could extend this to almost any type of legal but obnoxious corporate behavior you want to and accuse an employee of being a dickhead, when, really, he is just doing his job.
Also, this strikes me as similar to the business about never talking to the police officer, if you’ve been accused of a crime. There was a video posted a few weeks back in the (I think) YouTube thread, where a lawyer argued compellingly that you should never do it, even if it seems harmless. I can see the wisdom. You think: oh, this won’t hurt. I’m innocent! But, that’s often not the case. If you have a right to keep your mouth shut, you should not talk. If you are not breaking the law by letting a server sit outside of your office, then let him sit. My job has a lot of downsides, as does everyone else’s. Not gaining access to an office is just one of the downsides to the server’s job.
*This isn’t meant as a criticism of the OP’s behavior. What happened to the OP is just one of those things. Your boss is sort of a dick for laying the blame on you, especially if you weren’t specifically trained what to do for this type of event.
But you could be covering up for your company breaking the law. At that low of a level, you’re not likely to be privy to what the lawsuit is about or whether it has merit. Driving up the costs of the other side to try and avoid a lawsuit is hampering the justice system.
I can understand that position, Tim, but what about these hypotheticals:
You work at a health insurance company. One of your insureds files a form asking for preapproval of a medical procedure that takes a long time to set up. The procedure is covered, but they’ve written the wrong procedure number on their form. You can tell from the form what they are asking for and could just correct the procedure number for them and approve it. Or you could kick the form back, which will result in them losing their appointment and having to wait six months to get the form corrected and a new appointment. Assume this isn’t anything life-threatening, it’s just a quality-of-life issue for them. Is it dickheadish to reject the form when you clearly know what they’re asking for? Remember that it’s in the company’s best interests to delay paying legitimate claims for as long as possible.
You work in the customer service department of an electronics store. A customer comes in with an expensive flat-screen TV that he bought at your store yesterday, complaining that it doesn’t work. You test it and sure enough, it won’t turn on. Company policy is that he’s owed a refund or replacement if he has a proper receipt. He shows you his receipt, which lists the TV, purchase date of yesterday, etc. But there are some coffee stains on it that cover up some of the other items he bought the same day. The refund policy says that the receipt must be “entirely legible,” so technically you could turn him away because the receipt is unreadable in parts, although you freely concede those parts are irrelevant to his claim. Is it dickheadish to tell him “Sorry, this receipt is unacceptable?” Assume your store is responsible for the loss if you replace his TV because you were the ones who damaged it.
I’d have the store pull the purchase up in the computer and then demand a refund since they’re being twats about coffee stains on the receipt.
In both those cases I’d ask myself “Which choice here results in me causing myself grief?” cause I want the other one. If I can get away with doing either, then who signs my paycheck doesn’t carry as much weight in my decision.
That’s the difference between the shopping bag type situation and an on the job one: No one with leverage on you cares if you hold the door or not, not so on the job. You would be a dickhead not to hold the door because it costs you nothing. You wouldn’t be a dickhead to keep the server out because you’ll be the one to answer for it if you let him in.
To clarify, in the shopping bag thing, I don’t expect to have someone do it for me in return. It’s that I would HOPE for someone to do it for me, but I know full well that just because I do a good turn it does not mean one will be done for me.
Those are good hypotheticals.
Now that I’ve given it more thought, I realize I was wrong to focus only on observing the law. You also have to consider the nature of the relationship between the people interacting with the corporation. Companies have a relationship with customers that is typically mutually beneficial. You can have an employee who legally but unfairly takes advantage of a customer by not informing them that they incorrectly filled out a form, or by nitpicking their sales return, but this arguably leaves the company in a weakened position should a more mutually beneficial business model arise (see Netflix). Even if no other business ever overtakes the company that legally but unfairly takes advantage of its customer, the relationship between the customer the company clearly serves the customer some benefit (or they wouldn’t keep patronizing the company) and the company clearly benefits (or they wouldn’t keep offering their service).
In contrast, the server always has an antagonistic relationship with the company. The server’s only got a job because the state (or whoever is serving the company) can’t just mail the paperwork over. Their relationship is so hostile they have to have someone hand deliver the paperwork. This is what I was trying to get at with the fifth amendment stuff I wrote about earlier. I don’t think the lawyer from the YouTube was advising people to NEVER speak to the police. The police offer a valuable community service. Of course you might want to occasionally speak to them. The problem comes when the officer reads you your rights. This changes your relationship to the officer. Once this happens, you should get a lawyer. Similarly, if you see a server show up at your business asking for admittance, you recognize that he is there as an antagonist. If you’re not the company lawyer, you don’t let him in until you get clearance.
It’s not being a dickhead, it’s being responsible to the company.
I think the undercurrent in this thread, Bullhajj, is “f*ck the company!”.
That’s why I also emphasize the personal interest involved. Since the server is an antagonist, anyone ‘helping’ the server will be seen as a friend of my enemy. So, as an employee there, even if you hate the company you work for, you still have reason to consider your moves re process servers.
Sometimes avoiding service for long enough can be useful:
What exactly does “subpoena” mean anyway? Is it, like, something just short of a poena? And do I want to know just how long a poena is?
sub-poena:
under penalty (if you fail to appear, etc.)
Wow, what a dick. I understand that a lot of marriages break up with a lottery win, given freedom, most people take it… but that’s just low.