tification information over which he has a personal and propri-etary interest, the information sought is privileged, productionof the information would cause him an undue burden, and theinformation is not relevant to Third Degree’s case. Doe 26further states that there is a high risk that someone else down-loaded the video because others accessed Doe 26's router and Wi-Fi connection and could have used his IP address.To date, none of the defendants have been identified, served with process, or answered in the case pending in the NorthernDistrict of California.DiscussionFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(iii)-(iv)provides that "[o]n timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued must quash or modify the subpoena if it . . . requiresdisclosure of privileged or other protected material and noexception or waiver applies; or . . . subjects a person to undueburden." Further, "the party seeking to quash a subpoena underRule 45(c)(3)(A) has the burden of demonstrating that the infor- mation sought is privileged or subjects a person to an undueburden."
Hodgdon v. Northwestern University
, 245 F.R.D. 337, 341(N.D. Ill. 2007). However, implicit in the rule is the require- ment that a subpoena seek relevant information.
Stock v.Integrated Health Plan, Inc
., 241 F.R.D. 618, 621-22 (S.D. Ill.
case 4:11-mc-00002-APR document 13 filed 10/06/11 page 3 of 15