Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FRANCESCO CORALLO, 10 Case No. 22-cv-05229-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LEAVE TO SERVE BY EMAIL 13 LIMITED, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Francesco Corallo moves for leave to serve summons and complaint on 17 defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited (collectively 18 “NSO Defendants”) via email. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for 19 disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for February 9, 2023, is vacated. 20 Corallo previously sought and was granted leave to serve NSO Defendants by Federal 21 Express or other international courier. The documents were returned undelivered, however, with a 22 note stating “RTS Restricted Export RTS.” Corallo contacted Fedex and was advised the delivery 23 address is in a restricted government area that couriers are prohibited from entering. Lacking any 24 other physical address for NSO Defendants, Corallo proposes to serve them via email at 25 info@nsogroup.com and media@nsogroup.com, addresses listed on their website, 26 www.nsogroup.com, under the “CONTACT US” tab. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) provides service in a foreign country may be 1 addition, the method must comport with “constitutional notions of due process.” Rio Properties, 2 Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). “Service by email alone comports 3 with due process when a plaintiff demonstrates that the email is likely to reach the defendant.” 4 Vega v. Hastens Beds, Inc., 339 F.R.D. 210, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The decision whether to allow 5 alternative methods of serving process is left to the “sound discretion of the district court.” Rio 6 Properties, 284 F.3d. at 1016; see also Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 806 (9th Cir. 2004) 7 (rejecting service by email because plaintiffs did not obtain prior court approval). 8 A plaintiff need not attempt “every permissible means of service” of process before 9 || petitioning the court for alternative relief. Rio Properties, 284 F.3d. at 1016. In Rio Properties, the 10 || plaintiff filed suit against defendant RII, a Costa Rican entity. /d. at 1012. The plaintiff 11 unsuccessfully attempted to serve the defendant at its listed United States address, as well as 12 asking the defendant’s attorney to accept service. Jd. at 1013. The Ninth Circuit approved the use 5 13 || of email service, holding it was sufficient because it was the method most likely to reach 14 defendant. [d. at 1017; see also St. Francis Assisi v. Kuwait Fin. House, No. 3:16-cv-3240-LB, 3 15 2016 WL 5725002, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) (allowing service by social media because the A 16 defendant had an active Twitter account and used it to communicate with his audience). 5 17 Here, the requirements for service by email are met. Israel is a signatory to the Hague 18 Convention and has not objected service of process by e-mail. Corallo has made reasonable efforts 19 to serve NSO defendants by more conventional means, to no avail. Corallo has shown it is 20 || reasonable to presume the documents will reach the NSO Defendants, as they actively update their 21 web page. Accordingly, the motion is granted. 22 23 || ITISSO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: February 2, 2023 26 7 RICHARD SEEBORG Chief United States District Judge 28 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO SERVE BY EMAIL