subpoena on grounds that the deposition sought is “neither appropriate nor necessary” and “[d]eposing an opposing party’s attorney is disfavored.” Pet’r Mot. Quash, ECF No. 1, at 5. It urges the Court to apply the three-part test articulated by the Eighth Circuit in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir.1986), which limited the deposition of opposing counsel “to where the party seeking to take the deposition has shown that (1) no other means exist to obtain the information other than to depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.” Id. at 1327 (internal citations omitted); see also Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A., 263 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has
recognizing that the shelton standard shifts the burden of proof to the party seeking to depose opposing counsel holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that burden shifts to nonmovant to raise issue of fact holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only