The Court denied a motion for "alternative service of process" on a foreign defendant, ruling that the Plaintiff had not shown it had exhausted the traditional means of service available under Rule 4(j3) by attempting service through the means specified in the Hague Convention.
The Court further stated that if Plaintiff could not with due diligence serve the foreign defendant through traditional means, that it would allow for service of process by publication. The Court referenced an earlier order in another case in which it had done so.