an impermissible fishing expedition.”); United States v. Reed, 726 F.2d 570, 577 (9th Cir.1984) (affirming trial court order quashing defendants’ subpoena after in-camera review where the defendants “did not request specific documents, but sought entire arson investigation files”). The name of a document and mere speculation as to its contents are not sufficient to satisfy the Rule’s specificity and relevance requirements. See United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 755-56 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding trial court’s order quashing defendant’s subpoena of recorded police radio transmissions where the defendant had “stated why he wants to listen to the transmissions, but he cannot set forth what the subpoenaed materials contain”); United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331, 345-46 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 36] Here, Marroquin-Aldana’s subpoena
holding that the defendant did not demonstrate and our review of the record did not reveal that the defendant made a showing of good cause as to why his late notice should be accepted and as such the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendants belated oral motion to assert an insanity defense holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for reconsideration that relied on materials available to the movant at the time of the original motion and where movant did not give any explanation as to why she did not rely on those materials in the first instance holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing a subpoena where the defendant demonstrated why he wants to look into the subpoenaed material but  has not set forth what the subpoenaed materials contain forcing the court to speculate as to the specific nature of their contents and its relevance