in determining whether to quash a subpoena). In any event, as discussed above, evidence of Non-Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies is probative of the reasonableness of Consequential Damages Parties’ strategies and not substantially outweighed by the risks enumerated in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See Am. High-Income Trust v. AlliedSignal Inc., No. 02 Civ. 2506, 2006 WL 3545432, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2006) (denying motion to quash deposition subpoena because movant failed to show that deponent lacks relevant information or that his deposition would constitute an undue burden). Furthermore, the Bondholders do not submit affidavits from the subpoenaed entities and individuals describing the burden that the trial subpoenas impose. See Kirschner, 2005 WL 1214330, at *3 (<HOLDING>); In re County of Orange, 208 B.R. at 121
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that movant nonparty witness is not subjected to undue burden by testifying at trial because the courts interest in having all available information germane to the controversy outweighs the temporary interruption in the movants ongoing substance abuse treatment holding that a hearing officer may not quash a subpoena for a fact witness pursuant to section 32226152 florida statutes and rule 15a60135 florida administrative code and the defense has the absolute right to subpoena other witnesses to testify as to whether or not the defendant exhibited any signs of impairment at or near the time of arrest holding that it is not an undue burden for an 88yearold nonparty witness with mobility problems to testify at trial where the party seeking to quash the subpoena provided no affidavit or specific information regarding the manner and extent of the burden recognizing burden