Since Target National Bank v. Rocha, should I specify that a subpoena for a CCP 98 witness only be served personally to that witness, and no one else?

[NotaLawyer1]

Before Target v. Rocha, I understand that CCP 98 declarants commonly gave attorney addresses for service( as some of the lawyers on Avvo.com recently said you could not object to--I wonder what they think about Target National Bank v. Rocha). Apparently, the CCP 98 could be admitted as evidence after a subpoena was served to the attorney address, instead of personally to the witness. After Target National Bank v. Rocha, should I ask the process server to only serve the witness, and no one else?  Can I count on my judge (same county as T v. R) to go with that ruling?

And here's another interesting tidbit: What if the address is not the attorney's office, as stated on the CCP 98, but is actually a UPS Store?

The declarant is an out-of-state witness.

My goal is to get evidence from the process server that the declarant was not available for service, so I can use it to exclude the CCP 98.

 

I would appreciate replies from people who have been through this, and I would really appreciate replies from lawyers licensed in CA. 

Thank you!