The FRCP and state rules of civil procedure are totally going to have to be amended so that parties in the US can serve notice to the other party via Twitter. Or Facebook. Or MySpace. Or blog comment. Or text. *headdesk*

Across the pond in jolly old England, the high court is allowing an injunction (a court order for a party to do or not do (or not continue doing) something) to be served over Twitter.

At first glance, it seems ridiculous, but then the situation pulls itself together and starts making some sense. Apparently, the court order is being issued against an anonymous Twit who posts to the site using the same name as a right-wing pundit. The High Court orders the anon to reveal his or her identity and stop posing as Mr. Donal Blaney, as he is breaching copyright, even though the content posted on Twitter is only “mildly objectionable” and not out-and-out defamatory or anything, let’s say.

The choice to serve notice over Twitter was made to save time, because Mr. Blaney didn’t want to go through the lengthy process of contacting Twitter headquarters in CA and having to go through that channel.

Process requirements in the UK are different than they are in the US under the FRCP. Rule 4(e) governs service on an individual in the US (slightly different from service on a corporation) and lists five ways in which the other party may be notified of the law suit:

1. Personally deliver the summons to court and the official complaint to the defendant
2. Leave copies of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s house or abode with a person of suitable age and discretion residing within
3. Deliver papers to an agent appointed by the defendant to receive service of process on his behalf
4. Serve under the provisions governing service on individuals in the courts of the state where the federal court sits
5. Serve pursuant to the law of the state in which the defendant is actually being served.

Remember, these are the federal rules of civil procedure governing lawsuits brought in federal court.

Anyway, that’s the method used in the US. In the UK, service of process rules are a little differently. Specifically looking at injunctions, UK law states that an injunction doesn’t have to be served in person, and the law has accommodated technological avenues like fax and email. To read an article about the English Court’s 4/96 order to allow service of process by email, click here. If traditional methods are unavailable, a party may approach the court with any other method of service. Part of the inspiration for using Twitter in this case was a recent case in Australia where legal documents were successfully served over Facebook.

The injunction in question will be tweeted at 1930 BST and will have a link to the full text of the court order. Gosh, I hope they use TinyURL to shorten that sucker. These are the important procedural considerations, to be sure.

And, because it was such a smash hit on Social Media Law Student the first time I did it, and because I’m bored and love making these things, here’s a fake Twitter feed. Click to enlarge!

Originally posted at The Reasonably Prudent Law Student.

Related posts:

1. Facebook in the Courts
2. Georgia Judge Bans Twitter From Courtroom
3. New Jersey Judiciary Now Tweeting
4. Can Blogs Influence the Supreme Court?
5. Examining the Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence
6. Ohio Judge Makes ‘Anonymous’ Online Comment about Litigant, Refuses to Step Down
7. Kansas Federal Judge Allows Twittering Media in Courtroom
8. Social Media Study: Beware of DUITs
9. Quick Reference: Law Pod for iPhone Provides Rules of Procedure (Update)
10. How Cyber-Stalking Can Get You a Job