(“FTC”) directing a citizen of another country to produce documents relevant to an ongoing antitrust investigation. Id. at 1304. The foreign national refused to comply on the grounds that the FTC failed to comply with the modes of delivery set forth in § 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, an argument with which the court ultimately agreed. Id. In declining to issue an order to enforce the subpoenas, however, the court acknowledged that while the question presented “appear[ed] to rest solely upon statutory interpretation, [the court’s] answ 19425 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (finding majority rule unpersuasive and holding that although delivery to the person was required, delivery did not require personal in-hand service); Western Resources v. Union Pacific R.R., 2002 WL 1822432 (D.Kan. 2002) (<HOLDING>); King v. Crown Plastering, 170 F.R.D. 355
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 the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail 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