I haven’t written much about this topic except to update a couple of past posts, bringing them in line with recent developments as to electronic service and the Hague Service Convention. Frankly, the developments don’t alter my usual contention a whole lot, but they do provide some persuasive authority for e-service’s use in certain scenarios. It also puts to bed a whole bunch of farcical arguments made by plaintiffs’ attorneys– my people, for the record– who love to find ways around doctrines that shouldn’t be circumvented.
For starters, I contend that serving by mail is usually* just the cheap & easy way out. Yeah, it happens all the time, and if it brings a defendant to the table, great. But as a basis for a default judgment it is, in a word, lazy. Sloppy. Unwise. [Okay, three words.]
And I would extend that to say that service by email is the even cheaper & easier way out, lazier, sloppier, and even more unwise in all but the rarest cases.
We finally have some development– exceedingly sensible development, to be sure– on the compatibility of electronic service, particularly email, and the Hague Service Convention. I owe a huge thanks to Ted Folkman for his fantastic commentary following his attendance this past summer at the Special Commission on the Hague Service and Evidence Conventions. Ted publishes the always-insightful Letters Blogatory and his specific coverage of the event is carried over at the Transnational Litigation Blog. Ted covers the academic/”brief the court”/philosophical aspect of the question. My very presumptive post here takes all of his fine work and distills it into a nuts & bolts checklist. Seriously, your average PI litigator or IP lawyer or family law attorney or (insert litigation specialty here) just doesn’t have the time or bandwidth to devote to this stuff, so here’s the TL;DR: the Special Commission has determined that email is a postal channel.**
As such, email service is legally valid under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention.
But that’s not the end of the analysis. Woe to the litigator who just sees that conclusion and proceeds straight to a 4(f)(3) motion, because it’s still a deeper strategic question than “is email okay under FRCP?” Four big issues:
(1) Article 10(a) objections
Okay, so email is a postal channel. Great. Don’t even think about it in destinations where the state has objected to Article 10(a). If you can’t use FedEx, you can’t use Outlook or Gmail or Compuserv (yes, I have clients with Compuserv addresses– they still drive AMC Gremlins to work and their grandkids are already millionaires). This means that e-service on all those Schedule A defendants in 5-0 countries like China, Vietnam, Mexico, Germany… nein. Das ist nicht gut. Conclusively.
(2) How do you prove it?
But say you’re talking about someplace where 10(a) is acceptable. You’ve got to ask yourself about the last time you answered a read-receipt? For me, it was during the Clinton Administration. Unless the defendant has an out-of-office set up or is so myopic as to actually reply to you, you’re unlikely to have anything to show the court that says “see, your honor? They got it.” Sure, it may be all you have to go on so the court needs to accept a presumption, but when other, more demonstrable methods are available, don’t go this route.
(3) Do you want the defendant to actually show up?
If the only goal is to get a default judgment so you can show Amazon that a product line should be taken down, or so that you can show Customs & Border Patrol that infringing goods should be seized upon entry, then email service is fine. Provided you didn’t serve a defendant with a known address in a 5-0 country, and provided you can prove things up, it’s sufficient. That’s a whole lot of “provided” conditions.
(4) Will you have to enforce overseas?
Okay, let’s say you do get a U.S. judgment, whether default or on-the-merits. What then? If you have to seek enforcement of that judgment in a foreign country’s court, one of the first things that court is going to look at is the manner of service (they all have due process notions too). And while we might contend that e-service is constitutionally valid, they may not, regardless of its validity under the Convention. Remember, it ain’t over until your client gets a check, so don’t just take the cheap & easy way.
Wrapping it all up.
I’ve argued for years that, when other tenable methods of service are available, service by mail is a bad idea. The Special Commission’s determination last summer extends that argument to e-service. Bottom line: it may be the right thing to do in rare cases, but most of the time, it’s not.
* In rare cases, I actually recommend mail and electronic service, usually in non-Hague countries where Letters Rogatory are the only other option. But when there are viable Hague Article 5 and 10(b) channels available, they’re just cheaping out.
** Go to Ted’s commentary to see the arguments for and against this conclusion, because there’s just no room here and his insights are thorough and accurate. Period.