Servers rarely need a full investigation. They need the next address, quickly, with enough documentation to support a diligence affidavit if the attempt is later questioned.
Send the attempt history, not just the name
The single most useful thing a server provides is what already failed: which addresses were attempted, on what dates, at what times, and what was observed. Negative results narrow the search materially, and without them a trace often re-derives an address you already ruled out.
Scope to the deadline
A verification of one existing address is a much smaller scope than full address development, and the two carry different timelines. Say the deadline at intake so the scope is matched to it rather than discovered to be too slow halfway through.
What comes back
A process-server scope is deliberately narrow.
- A prioritized attempt list rather than an undifferentiated address dump
- Confidence indicators so you know where to spend the trip
- Associated locations such as workplace or entity addresses where supportable
- Registered agent details when the subject is an entity
- Source notes you can reference in a diligence affidavit
What research cannot do
Research does not confirm that a person is physically present, and it does not decide whether diligence has been satisfied. It supplies a documented basis for the next attempt; the judgment about service belongs to the server, counsel, and the court.
Have a matter that needs this kind of research?
Requests are reviewed for a lawful and authorized purpose before acceptance.
Request a Case Review