subpoenas that call for privileged matter or would cause an undue burden.”); Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir.1994); In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MD-1952, 2011 WL 1790189, at *2 (E.D.Mich. May 10, 2011) (“The Sixth Circuit has not expressly decided this issue. This Court concludes that the Sixth Circuit would join the opinions of those courts, mostly in this century, that have concluded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and various available privilege rules provide sufficient limitations on discovery to adequately address legitimate governmental interests in objecting to a motion to compel compliance with a valid federal court subpoena.”); In re PE Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 00-CV-705, 2005 WL 806719 at *6-7 (D.Conn. April 8, 2005) (<HOLDING>). “The Second Circuit has not decided which
holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only  not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present holding that the use requirement exists for  proposed state law claims and is analyzed in the same manner as under the federal claims recognizing privilege under federal rules recognizing the abovediscussed circuit split and holding that the agencys refusal to produce an individual for a deposition would be analyzed under the applicable federal discovery rules holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence