Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al.

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sanne KK DATE FILED:_06/15/2026 GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-9100 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER GEMSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., : Defendants. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Great American Insurance Company (“Great American” or “Plaintiff’) moves to serve a deposition subpoenas on non-party Jaime Castillo (“Castillo”). Dkt. No. 308. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 states that “[s]erving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). However, courts have authorized alternative service when a party has “demonstrate[d] a prior diligent attempt to personally serve.” Kenyon v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2016 WL 5930265, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2016); see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, 2009 WL 1313259, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Pence, 322 F.R.D. 450, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Plaintiff hired a process server through Bauer Trial Preparation (“BTP”) to personally serve a deposition subpoena on Castillo. Dkt. No. 310 § 1. Over the course of six weeks, the process server attempted to personally serve the subpoenas on Castillo six times at an address on Staten Island. /d. 3-8. The process server attempted to effect service both in the early morning and at the end of the day. /d. Each attempt was unsuccessful. /d. According to records of the department of motor vehicles as well as mortgage satisfaction records and a Property

Shark Report, Castillo resides at the Staten Island address. Dkt. No. 3119 8; Dkt. Nos. 311-3, 311-4, 311-5. Alternative service must be reasonably calculated to ensure the witness actually receives the subpoena. See Kenyon, 2016 WL 5930265, at *3; IDW Grp., 2009 WL 1313259, at *2-3. Courts have found that “nail and mail” service is appropriately calculated to ensure receipt of the subpoena. See Tube City IMS, LLC v. Anza Cap. Partners, LLC, 2014 WL 6361746, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014) (finding nail and mail service “quite likely” to provide “actual timely notice”); Beare v. Millington, 2010 WL 234771, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2010) (finding that nail and mail service constituted valid and proper service); DW Grp., 2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (service by certified mail reasonably ensures actual receipt of the subpoena where JP Morgan attempted service nine times and witness appeared aware that JP Morgan seeks to depose her); Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, 2000 WL 10268, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000) (approving alternative service by means of certified mail). Accordingly, the Court authorizes alternative service of the deposition subpoena on Castillo through the following means: 1. Affixing the subpoena and accompanying documents to the door of Castillo’s Staten Island address; and 2. Mailing the subpoenas and accompanying documents, via certified mail, to Castillo’s Staten Island address. The motion for alternative service is GRANTED. Proof of service shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(4). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 308. SO ORDERED. ye gis Dated: June 15, 2026 i OE an. New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge