proceeding arid concerns of undue burden or intrusiveness ... in determining whether to grant a section 1782 application.” In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano, 685 F.3d at 998 n. 7. Any requests that are “unduly intrusive or burdensome ... may be rejected or trimmed.” 542 U.S. at 265, 124 S.Ct. 2466. For instance, “[a] person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The Court finds, contrary to NextEra’s assertions, that most of Mesa Power’s discovery requests materially comply with the requirement that the discovery be “relevant to the foreign proceeding.” In re Dr. Braga, 789 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1304 (S.D.Fla.2011); compare In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano, 685 F.3d at 999 (<HOLDING>), with Kang v. Noro-Moseley Partners, 246
holding that the discovery relating to  the rates charged  to conocel or the procedure or methodology for applying the rates to be charged  are plainly relevant to the foreign proceedings as they formed the basis of conocels defense holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense holding that fedrevid 404b does not restrict evidence of crimes that arose out of the same series of transactions as the charged offense or that are necessary to complete the story of the charged crime holding but offering no authority for the position that the defense counsel could neither argue nor receive an instruction distinguishing the crime charged from a lesserunincluded offense not charged holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt