With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". service on an individual’s lawyer will not suffice. See Khachikian v. BASF Corp., No. 91-CV-573, 1994 WL 86702, at **1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 4,1994) (quashing subpoena that plaintiff mailed to the defendant corporation’s attorney rather than to the corporation itself, which was the party named in the subpoena); In re Deposition Subpoena Directed to Smith, 126 F.R.D. 461, 462 (E.D.N.Y.1989) (McLaughlin, J.) (denying plaintiffs motion to serve a deposition subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum on a non-party witness by delivering the subpoenas to the witness’s attorney where Rule 45 required service on the person named in the subpoena; noting that Rule 45 should be reevaluated to permit service of subpoenas other than by personal delivery); Harrison v. Prather, 404 F.2d 267, 273 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>); see also 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice

A: holding that service of subpoena on plaintiffs counsel as opposed to the plaintiff himself renders such service a nullity
B: holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service
C: holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
D: holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service
A.