The legal standard—and Ferrer’s argument
Rule 45 ordinarily requires personal service of a non-party subpoena. Courts may allow alternative service if a movant shows diligent, repeated attempts at a correct address and signs of evasion. Ferrer argues Baldoni falls short: his attempts were at the wrong addresses, with no showing they were ever hers, no outreach to her agent, and no simple skip-trace—let alone evidence she’s evading service (pp. 8–12).
Ferrer distinguishes a recent order permitting Lively to use alternative service on a different non-party—there, the address was verified and service attempts were made when someone appeared to be home, suggesting evasion. None of that exists here, she says (pp. 11–12).
“Harassing” scope and overlap
Ferrer also attacks the subpoena’s breadth. One request seeks “All Documents produced in connection with any subpoena in the Action,” which she calls duplicative and pointless for a non-party (pp. 2, 15–16; citing Baldoni’s subpoena at Dkt. 618-1 p. 9). She notes substantial overlap with Lively’s earlier subpoena, reinforcing the inference that the aim is pressure, not new evidence (pp. 15–16).
