to the present appeal. 2 . It is clear that Egilman violated the protective order by failing to inform Eli Lilly of the second subpoena, which required an earlier production date. See In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d at 395. Egilman would also appear to have contravened CMO-3 by failing to provide Eli Lilly with a reasonable opportunity to object to production with respect to the first subpoena. 3 . As he testified, Gottstein understood Egilman's reluctance to send him a copy of the order as an effort to avoid his later being charged with knowledge of its contents. Gottstein did not try to convince Egilman to provide him with a copy of CMO-3. 4 . See, e.g., U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Houston Bus. Journal, Inc. v. Office of
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that the subpoena power of a court cannot be more extensive than its jurisdiction recognizing the subpoena power of the judiciary holding that implicit in the arbitrators power to subpoena relevant documents at hearing is the power to order prehearing discovery holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment