John Paul Stevens

“ I stress, however, that the Court's opinion should not be read to suggest that the deferential relevance standard the Court has formulated will govern decision in every case, no matter how intrusive or burdensome the request. See ante, at 301 ("The Court of Appeals accordingly did not consider these aspects of the subpoenas, nor do we") .
I agree with the Court that what is "unreasonable or oppressive" in the context of a trial subpoena is not necessarily unreasonable or oppressive in the grand jury context. ”

“ This Rule requires the district court to balance the burden of compliance, on the one hand, against the governmental interest in obtaining the documents on the other. [1] A more burdensome subpoena should be justified by a somewhat higher degree of probable relevance than a subpoena that imposes a minimal or nonexistent burden. [2] Against the procedural history of this case, the Court has attempted to define the term "reasonable" in the abstract, looking only at the relevance side of the balance. ”

“ Westinghouse Electric Corp., 576 F.2d 588, 592 (CA5 1978) (plaintiff seeking broad range of documents "must show a more particularized need and relevance") ; Litton Industries, Inc. v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 129 F.R.D. 528, 530 (ED Wis.1990) (" 'If it is established that confidential information is being sought, the burden is on the party seeking discovery to establish that the information is sufficiently relevant and necessary to his case to outweigh the harm disclosure would cause' ") (citation omitted) ”