of the rule does not require in-hand service, but rather merely requires delivery of a copy of the subpoena to the person commanded to appear. Id. Sodexho also cited an unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Chima v. U.S. Department of Defense, 23 Fed.Appx. 721, 2001 WL 1480640 (9th Cir.2001) (unpublished). In Chima, the Ninth Circuit concluded that subpoenas which have not been personally served are “defectively served.” Id. at 725. Like the court in Benford, however, the Ninth Circuit cited solely to the rule itself for support and provided no further explanation. Id. Additionally, Sodexho relied on the D.C. Circuit case FTC v. Compagnie de SainP-Gobain-PonP-a-Mousson, 636 F.2d 1300 (D.C.Cir.1980). Compagnie involved subpoenas issued by the Federal Trade Commi .Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). The courts that have embraced the minority
holding rule 45b does not require personal service to the exclusion of other manners of service so long as the nonpersonal service was effected by means reasonably sure to complete delivery holding that service of a subpoena via certified mail is sufficient under rule 45 particularly when defendant does not deny actual receipt holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service holding that because alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness the delivery requirement of rule 45 will be met holding that inhand delivery is not required under rule 45 so long as service is made in a manner that reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena