aced the burden on the person moving to quash the subpoena to demonstrate that he falls outside the 100-mile limit. See, e.g., In re Application of Yukos Hydrocarbons Investments Ltd., 2009 WL 5216951 at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009); RIMSTAT, Ltd. v. Hilliard, 207 B.R. 964, 969 (D.D.C. 1997); Regents of Univ. of California v. Kohn