Is this defect sufficient reason to re-serve discovery deposition subpoena for records?

Question

Proof of Service point 1(a) is formatted  
[entity - witness] c/o [person]. 
 
Should be [person] c/o [entity witness] 
(Person 'in care' of i.e. in behalf of entity witness.) 
 
1. Is it sufficient basis for opposition by witness, requiring reserving? 
2. As of Naming witness: shall it be entity name, or custodian for records of the entity (as stated in SUBP-010)? 
 
What could be alternatives for need to reserve?

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

This type of formatting error on a proof of service is typically considered a minor technical defect that would not invalidate the subpoena or require re-service. The courts generally look at whether the entity and person received actual notice, rather than focusing on the specific formatting of the c/o designation. 
 
For naming conventions, you should list the entity as the witness since they are the custodian of records being subpoenaed. The specific person c/o the entity is simply the authorized agent for accepting service. The SUBP-010 form's reference to "custodian of records" describes the role rather than requiring that specific language in the witness designation. 
 
To avoid any potential issues, you could file a notice of errata to correct the formatting without re-serving, or obtain written confirmation from the witness that they received and accept service despite the technical error. If you do choose to re-serve out of an abundance of caution, consider that this may reset response timelines and delay your discovery process unnecessarily. The key question is whether the witness actually received notice and understands what records are being requested.

Q: Is this defect sufficient reason to re-serve discovery deposition subpoena for records?