With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". see also 9 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 45.51 [4] (3d ed. 2009) (“A party objecting to a subpoena on the ground of undue burden generally must present an affidavit or other evidentiary proof of the time or expense involved in responding to the discovery request.”). The Bondholders are sophisticated parties with the financial means to travel, particularly where nearly all of the foreign subpoenaed Bondholders live in London and can take a flight to one of three airports in the Court’s vicinity. In cases where movants faced more significant challenges to appearing for trial, courts in this Circuit have declined to quash trial subpoenas. See, e.g., Kirschner, 2005 WL 1214330, at *3; James v. Runyon, No. 91 Civ. 246, 1993 WL 173468, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 17, 1993) (<HOLDING>); accord In re McCorhill Publ’g, Inc., 91 B.R.

A: holding that movant nonparty witness is not subjected to undue burden by testifying at trial because the courts interest in having all available information germane to the controversy outweighs the temporary interruption in the movants ongoing substance abuse treatment
B: 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
C: holding that warnings given to a witness by the trial court and the prosecutor concerning the possibility that testifying could place the witness in jeopardy of revocation of his plea agreement and charges of perjury or false statement did not violate the defendants due process rights because the warnings merely corroborated in a straightforward and nonthreatening manner the information given by the witness attorney
D: recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants
A.