Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by a district court judge to conduct a hearing. Unless the district court judge decides to hold a hearing, the appellant asserts at least a somewhat compelling basis for the motion, or some exceptional circumstances require a hearing, the district court is not required to hold one. As the dissent in Harvey stated, “If the attorney, like any other grand jury witness, shows that the materials are privileged, or overcomes the grand jury’s presumption of regularity, then he is entitled to have the subpoena quashed.” 676 F.2d at 1013. Attorneys, like all others, have “the initial task of demonstrating ... some valid objection to compliance.” United States v. R. Enterprises, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 722, 730, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (Stevens, J., concurring); see id. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 728 (<HOLDING>). The attorneys offered a thirteen-page 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant (B) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff (C) holding that because a grand jury subpoena issued through normal channels is presumed to be reasonable  the burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the subpoena recipient who seeks to avoid compliance but recognizing that a court may be justified under some circumstances in requiring the government to reveal the general subject of the grand jurys investigation before requiring the challenging party to carry its burden of persuasion (D) holding that the burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the recipient who seeks to avoid compliance (E) holding that the burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure is on the party that seeks nondisclosure rather than on the party that seeks access
Output (English): holding that the burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure is on the party that seeks nondisclosure rather than on the party that seeks access