Is this sufficient reason to compel deposition of records? If not - what is alternative solution?

Question

plaintiff files motion to compel records from non-party witness In discovery subpoena. 
Subpoena was opposes based on defect in proof of service. 
Plaintiff timely instructed process server to correct proof of service, but process server refused. 
Is this sufficient reason to compel deposition of records?

Joel Gary Selik · Answer

If service was in fact defective per the P.O.S., then, the subpoena should be re-done and re-served.

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

Based on the information provided, a defective proof of service alone would not be sufficient grounds to compel the production of records via deposition. The opposing party has raised a valid procedural objection that needs to be addressed first. 
 
Your immediate solution would be to hire a different process server to properly serve the subpoena and create a valid proof of service. This fresh attempt with correct documentation would establish the proper foundation for pursuing the records. Alternatively, you could file a motion to validate the original service if you have independent evidence that proper service was actually completed, despite the process server's refusal to correct the documentation. 
 
If these steps don't resolve the issue, you could consider seeking a court order directing the original process server to correct the proof of service, though this may take more time than simply arranging new service. Remember that California courts generally prefer resolving discovery disputes through proper service and voluntary compliance before compelling depositions, so addressing the procedural defect is the most straightforward path forward.

Q: Is this sufficient reason to compel deposition of records? If not - what is alternative solution?