See In re Grand Jury Investigation (Harvey), 769 F.2d 1485, 1487 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that “[t]his court has conclusively rejected the requirement that the government make a preliminary showing of relevance and need before an attorney can be required to appear before a Grand Jury”). However, the absence of such a requirement in the grand jury context does not necessarily mean that no such requirement exists in the bankruptcy context. Rather, the absence merely reflects the balance struck between the competing interests implicated in the grand jury context, see United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 722, 728, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (balancing competing interests in grand jury proceedings); In re Grand Jury Proceeding (Cherney), 898 F.2d 565, 569 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Based on two significant differences between
holding that because the legislature had set up no machinery by which taxation of leasehold interests in public property could be carried into effect the legislature had not exercised its power to tax such interests and thus an injunction against maricopa countys assessment of taxes on such interests was appropriate holding that court should balance competing interests recognizing such an exception holding that rule 2004 requires court to balance competing interests weighing necessity of information sought recognizing such balance of interests