oppressive” within the meaning of Rule 45(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; this consideration entails inquiry into the trustee’s need for and the unavailability of the information sought. We base our conclusion on the relevant Bankruptcy Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as on significant differences between the issuance of subpoenas in the bankruptcy and grand jury contexts. Rule 45(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes a court to quash or modify an “unreasonable and oppressive” subpoena duces tecum. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(b). A determination of a subpoena’s reasonableness requires the court to balance the interests served by complying with the subpoena against the interests served by quashing it. See Herron v. Blackford, 264 F.2d 723, 725 (5th Cir.1959) (<HOLDING>); In re National Trade Corp., 28 B.R. 872, 874
holding that court should balance competing interests holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests recognizing such balance of interests recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis holding that rule 2004 requires court to balance competing interests weighing necessity of information sought