h Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms `to be regarded as reasonable.' United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1973) (quoting Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76 (1906), abrogated in part on other grounds by Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of New

442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) passim United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) 6 United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) 6 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) 2, 15 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) 9, 10 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 16 United

cation of grand jury interests is hot ‘some talisman that dissolves all constitutional protections."'Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 630—31 (quoting U.S, v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973)); see also Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S, 829, 838 (1978) (balancing state’s interest in preserving confi

from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 45-46 (1992); see also United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. I, 17-18 (1973) (holding that the grand jury must remain "free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervisi