NO ESCAPE: Court Enforces TCPA Subpoenas Against Nonparties Who Evaded The Process Server

Hi TCPAWorld!

In Starling v. Navlan PR, LLC, Misc. No. 26-129 (FAB), 2026 WL 2070277 (D.P.R. July 17, 2026), the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico refused to let two nonparties escape TCPA subpoenas by attacking the way they were served. The court held that a motion to enforce a subpoena is served under Rule 5, not Rule 4, so mailing it to them and their lawyers was enough. It also held that jurisdiction over a nonparty comes from service of the subpoena itself, not from service of the motion to enforce it. Because the subpoenas went out by court-approved alternative means and respondents clearly received them, the motion to quash was denied.

Background

Kimberly Starling sued Allstate Insurance Company in the Northern District of Illinois over an unwanted robocall. She wanted documents from Navlan PR, LLC and a deposition from its principal, Ryan Blackman, neither of whom was a party to her case. Nobody could serve them personally, so the Illinois court let her serve the subpoenas by mail and e-mail.

They missed the deadlines. Then their lawyers e-mailed to object to the service while agreeing to send over some documents. Blackman never showed up for his deposition.

So Starling moved to enforce in Puerto Rico, where compliance was required. Serving that motion proved no easier. Navlan’s registered agent address turned out to be an accounting firm that had never heard of the company. The process server sent to Blackman’s home in Dorado was stopped at the gate by a security officer who said he had standing orders not to let process servers in. Blackman’s own lawyers told the process server they had no information about him. So Starling put the motion in the mail.

Respondents then entered a limited appearance to argue that the mailing did not satisfy Rule 4, the rule for serving a summons, and that the court therefore had no personal jurisdiction over them. The court disagreed with both halves of that argument.

Rule 5 Governs The Motion, Not Rule 4

Rule 4 covers the summons. Everything filed after it, including a motion to enforce a subpoena, travels under Rule 5. See Freeman v. Giuliani, No. 21-3354 (BAH), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129605, at *20-23 (D.D.C. July 13, 2023). Rule 5 lets you mail the paper to the person’s last known address, and service is complete the moment it goes in the mail.

Jurisdiction Comes From The Subpoena, Not The Motion

Respondents were right that a court needs personal jurisdiction over a nonparty before it can compel compliance under Rule 45. See Gucci Am. v. Bank of China, 768 F.3d 122, 141 (2d Cir. 2014). But they were aiming at the wrong document. In subpoena practice, the service that matters is service of the subpoena, which is governed by Rule 45, not Rule 4. The point of delivering a subpoena to a named person is to make sure it is actually received, and that is what satisfies due process.

Rule 45 has long been read to require personal service, but a growing number of courts approve alternative service so long as it is reasonably calculated to give timely actual notice. See Bloom v. Campbell, No. 24-10339-RGS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115190, at *2 (D. Mass. June 17, 2025); Ott v. City of Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552, 557 (7th Cir. 2012) (certified mail works). Starling had court approval, she sent the subpoenas to the last known addresses and to e-mail addresses she had used with respondents before, and respondents obviously got them, because they answered them.

Takeaways

The key fact here is that respondents responded at all. Once they objected to the subpoenas and sent documents over, they could not credibly claim they never received notice. That partial response sank the whole argument.

So if you are chasing discovery from a vendor or a lead generator who does not respond, the path is clear. Try personal service, ask the issuing court for leave to serve by alternative means, then move to enforce in the district where compliance is required. And if you are on the receiving end, a dead registered agent address and a gate guard with orders to turn away process servers will not make a subpoena disappear. It just builds the record that gets alternative service approved.

We will keep you posted, TCPAWorld!