MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge.
On May 28, 2013, County of Cook ("Cook County"), a non-party respondent to two subpoenas duces tecum, filed a motion to quash subpoenas it received on April 16, 2013 and May 7, 2013 ("Cook County Subpoenas"). (R. 78, Cook Mot.) On May 29, 2013, the Cook County Office of the Independent Inspector General ("OIIG"), a non-party recipient of two subpoenas duces tecum, filed a motion to quash subpoenas it received on April 16, 2013 and May 7, 2013 ("OIIG Subpoenas"). (R. 80, OIIG Mot.) Because the motions present overlapping issues, the Court addresses both here. For the reasons below, the Court grants both motions to quash.
On August 1, 2012, a grand jury indicted Defendant Eugene Mullins with four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and four counts of corrupt solicitation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). (R. 1.) According to the government:
[a]ll eight counts in which Mullins is charged relate to three types of professional and managerial service contracts awarded by Cook County in 2010: (1) a series of Census Contracts awarded to promote awareness and increase response rates by Cook County residents for the 2010 United States Census; (2) a series of Disaster Grant Contracts awarded to promote awareness and assist Cook County residents impacted by the floods of 2008; and (3) a series of Energy Grant Contracts awarded to promote energy efficiency and conservation in Cook County.
(R. 83, Gov't Resp. at 2.) The indictment charged Defendant Mullins with assisting others in submitting false and fraudulent documents to Cook County to obtain these contracts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the OIIG are conducting an ongoing joint investigation, together with the United States Attorney's Office and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, into these three types of contracts and similar contracts, commonly known as the "24-9 contracts." ( Id. at 2.)
The government represents that, since the indictment, it has "made a voluminous and substantial production of documents and materials to the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and Local Criminal Rule 16.1." (Gov't Resp. at 2.) "Specifically, the government produced three compact disks, together with a corresponding 11-page index, containing reports of interviews, documents, bank records, e-mail files, and other materials" as well as "literally dozens and dozens of relevant reports and materials pursuant to Rule 16, including reports generated by the FBI as well as [OIIG] and State's Attorney investigators." ( Id. at 3.)
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 17(c)(2) provides that a "court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." Fed. Crim. P. 17(c)(2). According to the Supreme Court, to require production of certain material prior to trial, the moving party must show:
(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition.'
U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 2039 (1974); see also U.S. v. Tokash, 282 F.3d 962, 971 (7th Cir. 2002); U.S. v. Kashmiri, No. 09 CR 830-4, 2011 WL 1326373, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 01, 2011).
I. The Subpoenas
On April 16, 2013, the Cook County Department of Information Technology received a subpoena ("IT Subpoena") from Defendant ...