employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.”) 13 . 229 F.3d 272, 276-77 (D.C.Cir.2000). Section 1782 provides that the "district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony.” 14 . 251 F.3d 178, 180-81 (D.C.Cir.2001). 15 . See Yousuf v. Samantar, No. MISC. 05-110 (RBW), 2005 WL 1523385 (D.D.C. May 3, 2005); United States ex rel. Taylor v. Gabelli, No. MISC. 04-534 (RJL), 2005 WL 2375173 (D.D.C. May 3, 2005); Lerner v. District of Columbia, 362 F.Supp.2d 149 (D.D.C.2005). 16 . See, e.g., Gabelli, 2005 WL 2375173, at *2. 17 . At least one case has squarely held that the word "person" in Rule 45 does include the federal government. See Connaught Labs., Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham P.L.C., 7 F.Supp.2d 477, 480 (D.Del.1998) (<HOLDING>). The Connaught Labs court based its holding on
holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies holding that outside of rule 35 there exists no inherent authority for a district court to modify a sentence holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it holding arbitration panel had authority to order the prehearing production of documents from a nonparty holding that the court had authority under rule 45 to modify and enforce subpoenas against nonparty federal agencies