UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 09-11033 

 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

v. 

JEFFERY A. WELTI, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO ALLOW RECORDS SUBPOENA 

On March 19, 2009, the government filed a complaint against Jeffery A. Welti, alleging 

that Welti has not paid off student loans he obtained in November 1982 and September 1983. 

After Welti was served but failed to answer, the government obtained a default judgment against 

him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment 

for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown 

by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.”). The government was 

awarded “a total judgment amount of $14,304.63 together with post judgment interest.” Entry of 

J. by Default 1, ECF No. 7. 

 Writs of continuing garnishment then issued on May 29, 2009 and August 12, 2011. At 

present, however, the government “has no knowledge of any assets or employment of [Welti] to 

collect on the above debt.” Pl.’s Pet. ¶ 3, ECF No. 17. But the government believes there is a 

company in possession of this information. 

 It alleges that is has “reason to believe and does believe that CENTRAL MORTGAGE 

COMPANY has information leading toward assets and or employment of the Defendant that 

1:09-cv-11033-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/25/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 64
- 2 - 

would enable Plaintiff to satisfy said Judgment.” Id. at ¶ 4 (emphasis in original). Notably, the 

government did not share those reasons with the Court. 

 As the government asserts in its brief, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(c) permits a 

court, so long as it complies with Rule 45, to compel a nonparty “to produce documents and 

tangible things or to permit an inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45 permits a subpoena to issue which sets out “[a] command to produce documents, 

electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(C). 

 The government argues that because it “seeks only document production” and not “the 

appearance of anyone from said entity to testify,” the Court “must issue” the subpoena it 

requests. Pl.’s Br. 1, ECF No. 17. This logic, however, is simply mistaken. 

 The mistake stems from the government’s strained reading of Rule 45. The Rule first 

sets out the form a subpoena must take and the substance a subpoena must contain. Rule 45 then 

sets forth how to determine which court should issue a valid subpoena, providing: “A subpoena 

must issue as follows: . . . (C) for production or inspection . . . from the court for the district 

where the production or inspection is to be made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C). Thus, this Court 

“must issue” a subpoena in the manner prescribed by Rule 45, but whether to issue a subpoena at 

all is reserved to the Court’s discretion. After all, Rule 34 is permissive, not mandatory. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) (“As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to produce 

documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection.” (emphasis added)). 

 The Court, however, is inclined to grant the petition to allow a records subpoena because 

of the safeguards built in to Rule 45. Section (c) of the Rule is titled “Protecting a Person 

Subject to a Subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). Subsection (2)(B) then provides that “[a] person 

1:09-cv-11033-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/25/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 65
- 3 - 

commanded to produce documents or tangible things . . . may serve on the party or attorney 

designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or 

all of the materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). Because Central Mortgage Company (CMC) 

will have the opportunity to object to the subpoena if it wishes, and because the government will 

serve this order upon CMC along with the subpoena, the petition will be granted. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government’s petition to allow records subpoena, 

ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the government is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order 

on Central Mortgage Company along with the subpoena (which must comply with the 

requirements of Rule 45). The government is also DIRECTED to subsequently file proof of 

service on the Court’s docket. 

Dated: June 25, 2013 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

     

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing 

order was served upon each attorney or party of record 

herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on June 

25, 2013.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:09-cv-11033-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/25/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 66