no interest to object, the most personal and sensitive information about a party. By failing to receive prior notice of the information sought from the non-party, a party is deprived of its greatest safeguard under the Rule, i.e., the ability to object to the release of the information prior to its disclosure. Therefore, the loss of the opportunity to object prior to the release of the information caused injury to Steinman regardless of whether the information ultimately was turned over to his counsel. Moreover, the injury resulting from attorney misuse of the subpoena power is not limited to the harm it inflicts upon the parties. Rather, misuse of the subpoena power also compromises the integrity of the court’s processes. United States v. Santiago-Lugo, 904 F.Supp. 43, 48 (D.P.R.1995) (<HOLDING>). Under Rule 45, an attorney, as an officer of
recognizing that the mere fact that the jury is made aware that the defendant is making an unsworn statement does not result in reversible error holding that implicit in the arbitrators power to subpoena relevant documents at hearing is the power to order prehearing discovery recognizing that the mere fact that an attorney abuses the subpoena power directly implicates the court itself and causes an embarrassment to the institution holding that the subpoena power of a court cannot be more extensive than its jurisdiction recognizing the subpoena power of the judiciary