the same objections. (Govt.’s Opp’n [94] 3-4.) While the parties argue objections relating to matters as varied as timeliness, privilege, proper procedure, undue burden, materiality, this Court finds that the jurisdictional issue is dispositive. Defendant’s motion must be denied because it has provided no valid basis on which to compel a federal agency to comply with a subpoena. This Court must have authority to compel discovery. The most likely source are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Government notes, however, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 cannot provide a basis for granting defendant’s motion to compel because the United States is not a “person” within the meaning of that rule. See U.S. ex. rel. Taylor v. Gabelli, 233 F.R.D. 174, 175-76 (D.D.C.2005) (Leon, J.) (<HOLDING>); Lerner v. District of Columbia, 2005 WL
holding that the defendant cannot overcome this presumption of service merely by denying that he did not receive the complaint holding that the presumption that rule 45 does not apply to the federal government can only be overcome by affirmative evidence holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government