MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENA AND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION BY ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

DAVID NUFFER, Magistrate Judge.

Counterclaim Defendant Joseph G. Pia's and Third-Party Defendant Pia, Anderson, Dorius, Reynard & Moss's (Movants) Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena and Notice of Deposition by Alternative Service1 (Motion for Leave) is before the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge has carefully reviewed the motions, memoranda, relevant legal authorities and other materials submitted by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, Movants' Motion for Leave is DENIED.

Introduction

On November 15, 2011, Movants' counsel sent an email to Lawrence J. Fossi, Stewart Rahr's attorney, asking if Mr. Rahr could be deposed in December or January 2012 in New York City.2 Mr. Fossi responded by questioning the relevance of Mr. Rahr's testimony.3 In a responsive email, Movants' counsel explained to Mr. Fossi the reasons Mr. Rahr needed to be deposed even though Mr. Rahr was not a party to the litigation, and attached to the email to Mr. Fossi a notice of deposition and subpoena for Mr. Rahr.4 The subpoena was issued from the Southern District of New York.5

Mr. Fossi did not respond to Movants' counsel's emails, so Movants' counsel retained a process server in New York City to personally serve the subpoena.6 After multiple attempts, the process server was unsuccessful and has not personally served the subpoena on Mr. Rahr.7 As a result, Movants ask the magistrate judge to grant leave to serve Mr. Rahr's subpoena and notice of deposition on Mr. Rahr's attorney, Mr. Fossi.8

Discussion

Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a subpoena must be issued "from the court for the district where the production . . . is to be made,"9 and must be served "to the named person."10 Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicates that a subpoena may be served on a third party's attorney. Further, only the issuing court has power to modify a subpoena.11 "Accordingly, the court in which the action is filed lacks jurisdiction to rule on subpoenas issued from other courts."12

Here, Movants request the subpoena be modified by this court by allowing an alternative method of service. However, this court is the court in which the action is filed, not the court that issued the subpoena. Because such request for modification of a subpoena must be resolved by the court that issued the subpoena—the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—this court lacks jurisdiction.

ORDER

The Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena and Notice of Deposition by Alternative Service13 is DENIED.