court’s characterization of the subpoena’s purpose, we conclude as a matter of law that the bankruptcy court’s inquiry should not have ended there. The court also should have considered whether appellants’ compliance with the subpoena would be “unreasonable a ankr.N.D.Ill.1983) (balancing “the benefit of the information against the burden of production”). This balancing of benefits against burdens calls for the court to consider, inter alia, whether the information is necessary and unavailable from any other source. See In re Garcia, 76 B.R. 68, 69 (E.D.Pa.) (affirming denial of motion to quash in part because subpoenaed lawfirm records “relevant and not available from any other source”) (emphasis added), aff'd, 838 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.1987); In re National Trade Corp., 28 B.R. at 875 (<HOLDING>); see also Herron, 264 F.2d at 725 (suggesting
recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants holding actual possession of or access to information by the irs is not an absolute bar to enforcement of a summons for that information recognizing burden recognizing plaintiff met this burden holding by federal district court that before a court orders disclosure of educational records the party seeking disclosure is required to demonstrate a genuine need for the information that outweighs the privacy interest of the students