Court Opinion

ID: 9503046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:36:44.180251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:17.318294
License: Public Domain

Marilyn Kelly, J.
(concurring). I concur fully with the majority opinion. I would explicitly instruct trial courts *286that substituted service should not be permitted in cases like this one absent a showing that counsel made reasonable use of Internet search tools. I would add such a requirement by amending MCR 2.105(I).
In 2011, electronic technology has greatly improved the likelihood of locating a defendant. How can someone establish that he or she has made a diligent but unsuccessful effort to locate another party unless, at a minimum, a cursory Internet search can be demonstrated?
This case provides an apt illustration. In part by executing an Internet search, plaintiff was able to locate defendants in relatively short order after the default judgment was entered. Defendants demonstrated that a five-minute Google search for the individual defendants, even with the limited information available to plaintiff, would have led to their longtime home addresses.
With these observations, I join the majority’s opinion.