is denied. C. The Subpoena Comports With Rule 17(c) Finally, Nasdaq urges that the Subpoena contravenes Rule 17(c) because the documents that it seeks are insufficiently relevant to warrant admission at trial and, in any event, are procurable through means other than the Subpoena. Br. at 9-11. The Court disagrees. As discussed in the September 20 and December 15 Orders, a party seeking the issuance of a subpoena under Rule 17(c) must satisfy the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Nixon. In particular, the party must demonstrate the materials targeted by the subpoena are (i) relevant, (ii) admissible, and (iii) specifically identified. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700, 94 S.Ct. 3090; see also United States v. Yudong Zhu, 13-cr-761, 2014 WL 5366107, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Binday, 12-cr-152, 2013 WL
recognizing courts inherent power to issue subpoenas recognizing applicability of discovery rule recognizing applicability of  312 in the instance of an agents divulgence of confidential information to a third party at the third partys behest holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties recognizing nixons continuing applicability to defense subpoenas issued to third parties