*1 The Court held a telephone conference in this matter to address the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas filed on behalf of more than two-dozen non-parties. (ECF Nos. 19, 24, 25.) As an initial matter, the Court asked the parties why the case should remain sealed in light of the stipulation adjourning the hearing in this matter until September 19, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) No basis was given. The Court therefore vacates the sealing order that was issued on May 23, 2017 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(8). (ECF No. 11.) The statute provides “[a]n order under this subsection, together with the supporting documents, shall be sealed until the person against whom the order is directed has an opportunity to contest such order, except that any person against whom such order is issued shall have access to such order and supporting documents after the seizure has been carried out.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(8). As defendants in this action have been served and have been afforded an opportunity to contest the seizure order, there is no impediment to lifting the seal. Accordingly, the prior order granting plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal is lifted and the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this matter forthwith.[1] See North Face Apparel Corp. v. TC Fashions, Inc., No. 05 Civ 9083 (RMB), 2006 WL 838993, at *7 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2006) (Memorandum Endorsement, dated December 27, 2005 (“Sealing is vacated in the interest of public disclosure (and in the absence of authorities presented by the parties).”).

The Court also asked the parties why discovery should remain expedited (responses required in three calendar days) in light of the parties’ stipulation adjourning the hearing. No good reason was provided. The Court therefore vacates the expedited discovery order issued on May 23, 2017. (ECF No. 10.) Under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(B), the Court may modify the time limits for discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where necessary to avoid frustrating the purpose of the hearing held within days of a completed seizure. Here, the urgency which provided the statutory basis for issuance of the expedited discovery order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(B) has been eliminated.

Upon thorough review of the plaintiffs’ and the non-parties’ submissions regarding the Motion to Quash (ECF Nos. 19, 22, 23, 24, 25), and after considering all arguments made on the record at today's telephone conference, the Court grants the non-parties’ Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoenas. “Whether a subpoena imposes [ ] an ‘undue burden’ depends upon ‘such factors as relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the burden imposed.’ ” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (quoting U.S. v. International Business Machines Corp., 83 F.R.D. 97, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)). Plaintiffs’ counsel's need for the information sought in the subpoenas is to identify the sources of the counterfeit products at issue in this case. However, plaintiffs’ subpoenas run afoul of the limits imposed by Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The information sought must be relevant to the instant action against defendant H&H.

*2 Plaintiffs may not use this action to gain unfettered access to dozens of non-parties’ documents regarding their business dealings (which include privileged information) without showing a clear connection to the case against H&H. Plaintiffs do not demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the non-parties they subpoenaed and the allegations regarding defendants in this action. For example, several subpoenaed non-parties reportedly testified that their businesses have never purchased or sold domestic FreeStyle test strips. Nonetheless, plaintiffs served them with subpoenas. Moreover, other non-parties argued that plaintiffs are using subpoenas in this case to circumvent the limits set by the Court in a related case. For these and other reasons addressed on the record, the Court finds that compliance with the plaintiffs’ subpoenas would subject the non-parties to an undue burden in contravention of Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Rule 45 empowers the District Court to modify a subpoena, I decline to do so. It is for plaintiffs’ counsel, not this Court, to redraft the subpoenas.

Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a Return listing the inventory seized from defendants in compliance with the Court's Orders by June 23, 2017. (ECF Nos. 11, 15.) Should counsel for the plaintiffs and the non-parties be unable to agree regarding the method of service for any modified subpoenas that plaintiffs may serve, plaintiffs’ counsel may write to the Court by June 23, 2017, and non-parties’ counsel may respond by June 28, 2017.

SO ORDERED.