encourages lawyers to act with zeal for a client’s cause. Model Rules of Prof 1 Conduct R. 1.3 cmt. (2011) (“A lawyer must also act ... with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.... [but] [t]he lawyer’s duty ... does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treati om normal advocacy. With this in mind, we turn to the task of formulating a test for when Rule 45(c)(1) permits sanctions. Appellees urge us to look beyond the face of the subpoena and to read the “undue burden” language in Rule 45(c)(1) as including the burdens associated with guarding protected information. We decline, however, to adopt such a reading. Our only Rule 45(c)(1) sanction-specific case interprets “undue burden” as the burden associated with compliance. See Mattel, Inc., 353 F.3d at 813-14 (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit, which has addressed the
holding that a subpoena requesting all documents relating to certain people products and procedures imposed an undue burden holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist holding that if the court determines that the papers and records should be kept confidential the burden to show good cause would be upon the party requesting to unseal or open the documents 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 holding that the term timely should be read in conjunction with 45c2b that requires a party subject to a subpoena to object to a subpoena duces tecum within 14 days of service of the subpoena