IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 23, 2020
Docket1:19-cv-01578
StatusUnknown

This text of IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION (IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

HOMP SON ATLANTA CLEVELAND DAYTON WASHINGTON, D.C. HINE CINCINNATI COLUMBUS NEW YORK

March 2,200 MEMO ENDORSED Via ECF Honorable Valerie Caproni, U.S.D.J. USDC SDNY United States District Court DOCUMENT Southern District of New York ELECTRONICALLY FILED 40 Foley Square, Room 443 DOC #: New York, New York 10007 DATE FILED: 3/23/2020 RE: In re Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-01578—-VEC Dear Judge Caproni: We represent Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Navidea’) and Macrophage Therapeutics, Inc. (“Macrophage”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the above referenced matter. Per the Court’s endorsement of March 17, 2020 (ECF #100), we submit this letter motion requesting an Order permitting alternate service of process for a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena duces testificandum (collectively, the “Subpoenas”’) on Alec Goldberg (“Alec”), a proposed deponent. At the outset, we want to explain to the Court that Alec is not a stranger to this litigation. Specifically: (1) Alec was hired by his father, Defendant Dr. Michael M. Goldberg (“Dr. Goldberg’), and worked for Macrophage during the relevant time frame (Ex. A); (2) on February 20, 2019, the day that Dr. Goldberg was removed as CEO of Macrophage, Alec sent a “test” e- mail from his Macrophage e-mail account to his Gmail account (Ex. B); (3) Alec was allegedly appointed to the board of Macrophage in November 2018 (Ex. C); and (4) Alec is a director of M1M2 Therapeutics, Inc. (“M1M2”), the entity involved in the transaction that is alleged by Navidea to be a breach of the August 14, 2018 agreement (Ex. D). Since early January 2020, Plaintiffs have made numerous attempts to personally serve Alec with the Subpoenas, requiring him to appear for a deposition and produce documents to Plaintiffs. (Exs. E-G). Plaintiffs, using a process server, performed a “skip trace” search on January 10, 2020, and have performed numerous searches on the internet for Alec, to no avail. Although the skip trace searches uncovered two (2) addresses for Alec, one of which is the address of Dr. Goldberg, Plaintiffs’ attempts to serve Alec at these addresses have been unsuccessful. (Exs. E-F). On January 13, 2020, Plaintiffs attempted to personally serve Alec at Dr. Goldberg’s address. (Ex. E). The process server was unable to serve Alec and was informed by Dr. Goldberg that Alec did not live at that address. (/d.). On January 15, 2020, a second attempt was made to serve the Subpoenas at Alec’s last known address identified through the

Barry.Kazan@ThompsonHine.com Fax: 212.344.6101 Phone: 212.908.3921 baf 4840-1843-3435.1 THOMPSON HINE LLP 335 Madison Avenue www. [hompsonHine.com ATTORNEYS AT Law 12th Floor O: 212.344.5680 New York, New York 10017-4611 F: 212.344.6101

‘THOMPSON ~ HINE

Honorable Valerie E. Caproni March 20, 2020 Page 2 skip trace. (Ex. F). The process server attempted to serve the Subpoenas, but there was no response after his attempts to ring the doorbell. Ud.). Due to Plaintiffs inability to personally serve Alec or locate his residential address, on March 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a letter requesting the Court’s assistance in compelling Dr. Goldberg to disclose Alec’s address. (ECF #88). On the same day, the Court, by memo endorsement, held that a fact discovery extension would only be granted if Dr. Goldberg provided Plaintiffs with Alec’s current address and phone number, and certified as such. (ECF #90). On March 6, 2020, Dr. Goldberg’s counsel stated through an e-mail correspondence that 69 Thompson Street, New York, NY 10012 (“69 Thompson Street”) was Alec’s address and that he had no phone number. A third attempt was made to serve the Subpoenas at that address but there was no listing for Alec on any of the nameplates. (Ex. G). We e-mailed counsel for Dr. Goldberg as to whether they had an apartment number and received no response. Our process server attempted to call Alec on a number we believed to be his and received no response. Similarly, on March 12, 2020, we e-mailed him the Subpoenas at the personal Gmail address that he used for Macrophage business and received no response. District courts in this Circuit have noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 “does not explicitly demand personal service of a subpoena, but instead requires only that a copy be ‘delivered’ to the person whose attendance or production of documents is sought. Such language ‘neither requires in-hand service nor prohibits alternative means of service.” Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, No. 99 Civ. 3200 (DLC), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19980, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 1999) (citation omitted); King v. Crown Plastering Corp., 170 F.R.D. 355, 356 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (any means of service in accordance with New York procedural law sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 requirements). Plaintiffs have made three (3) attempts to serve Alec in person but have been unsuccessful. Because Dr. Goldberg has failed to provide a useful address for Alec (even though he has certified as such), it appears that either Alec is attempting to evade service or Dr. Goldberg is deliberately refusing to cooperate in securing his attendance at a deposition. “The [Fed. R. Civ. P.] should not be construed as a shield for a witness who is purposefully attempting to evade serve.” Cordius Trust, 1999 US Dist. LEXIS 19980, at *6. Accordingly, substitute service is appropriate. Substitute service is permitted where the means of service reasonably ensures actual receipt by the witness. See, e.g., Tube City IMS, LLC vy. Anza Capital Partners, LLC, No. 14 Civ. 1783 (PAE), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160667, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014); Med. Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC vy. Carecore Nat’l, LLC, No. 06 Civ. 7764 (CS) (THK), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62376, at *7-11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008). As suggested by these authorities,

THOMPSON HINE

Honorable Valerie E. Caproni March 20, 2020 Page 3 alternative means of service satisfies the “delivery” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Cordius Trust, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19980, at *6. Courts have approved substitute service of subpoenas by certified mail and e-mail. See Tube City IMS, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160667, at *3-4 (granting motion to serve witness by attaching a copy of the subpoena to the witness’ door, mailing a copy to the witness’ residence by certified mail, and mailing and e-mailing a copy to the witness’ lawyer in a different matter); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 Civ. 9116 (PGG), 2009 US Dist. LEXIS 39714, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) (granting plaintiff's request to serve a subpoena by multiple alternate means, including “remitting a copy of the deposition subpoena by electronic mail and certified mail to counsel” of the putative deponent); Cordius Trust, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19980, at *6-7 (granting motion to serve subpoena duces tecum by certified mail). Here, Plaintiffs propose to combine service of the Subpoenas by certified mail and by e- mail. For service of the Subpoenas by certified mail, we propose to serve the Subpoenas to his former address (which is Dr. Goldberg’s residence), 69 Thompson Street (which was provided by Dr. Goldberg’s counsel), and at M1M2’s current company address detailed on its Certificate of Incorporation. (Ex. H). These methods are reasonably likely to ensure that Alec receives the Subpoenas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

King v. Crown Plastering Corp.
170 F.R.D. 355 (E.D. New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-navidea-biopharmaceuticals-litigation-nysd-2020.