served by “delivering” a copy to the person named therein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). In this case, a process server went to a house that Mrs. Terry’s company owns and that the Terrys use as a vacation home, and handed the subpoena to Mr, Terry. Mrs. Terry argues that did not constitute delivery because Rule 45 WL 2038799, at *2-3 (Bankr. S. D. Fla. May 8, 2008) (rejecting “as antiquated the so-called majority position interpreting Rule 45 as requiring personal service,” and instead adopting “the better-reasoned, modern, emerging minority position, which holds that substitute service of a subpoena is effective on a nonparty witness under Rule 45” and finding permissible a subpoena served on a party’s wife at a residence owned by him); Hall v. Sullivan, 229 F.R.D. 501, 505 (D. Md. 2005) (<HOLDING>). ' Mrs, Terry next asserts CresCom’s lawyers
holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service holding that personal jurisdiction is not conferred if service under rule 4 is not properly effected holding that rule 45b does not require personal service holding rule 45b does not require personal service to the exclusion of other manners of service so long as the nonpersonal service was effected by means reasonably sure to complete delivery