7. Civil/criminal rules of procedure

Subpoenas in criminal cases may not be overbroad or frivolous and must represent a good faith effort to identify evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). In civil cases, the subpoenaing party must avoid imposing undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), a party may obtain discovery regarding “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”  Id. Rule 26 permits courts to issue any order which justice requires in response to a discovery request, to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Id. These protective orders include limiting the scope of discovery of certain matters, restricting the persons who have access to certain discovery matters, and sealing from the public any information obtained during discovery. Bruno & Stillman v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 596-97 (1st Cir. 1980).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 outlines the protections available to individuals subject to subpoenas. Rule 45 (d)(1) imposes sanctions on a subpoenaing party when it fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that a subpoena is not unduly burdensome. Under Rule 45(d)(3), a court will quash or modify a subpoena if it: (1) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance, (2) requires another individual to travel more than 100 miles from his or her residence, place of employment or where he or she regularly conducts business, (3) requests the disclosure of privileged matter, or (4) subjects the individual to an undue burden. However, upon a showing of the moving party’s substantial need for the information, a court may choose to either modify or quash the subpoena.

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the moving party must demonstrate, among other things, that the request for information is made in good faith and not intended as a general “fishing expedition.” United States v. LaRouche Campaign, 841 F.2d 1176, 1179 (1st Cir. 1988).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B) states that a party who is subpoenaed may submit a written objection to the subpoena within 14 days of service of the subpoena or before the time set for compliance, if less than 14 days. Rule 45(c)(3)(A) states that the court shall quash or modify the subpoena if it imposes an undue burden, does not allow for enough time to comply, requires a person to travel more than 100 miles (with exceptions) or requires disclosure of privileged information. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2) states that the court will quash a subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive.

The burden to establish that a subpoena is oppressive or unreasonable is on the party who seeks to have it quashed. See 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2459 at 46. The party moving to quash cannot merely declare that complying with the subpoena would be burdensome without showing the reason why it would be burdensome and the extent of the burden and injury if the person is forced to comply. See United States v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 83 F.R.D. 97, 104 (S.D.N.Y.); see generally 9A Wright 7 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2459 at 46-47. For examples of when this burden has and has not been deemed met, see infra Section VI.B.

Subpoenas in criminal cases may not be overbroad or frivolous and must represent a good faith effort to identify evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). In civil cases, the subpoenaing party must avoid imposing undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).

Rule 45(d) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires a judge to modify or quash a subpoena upon timely motion and impose sanctions upon the seeking party if the subpoena subjects a person to “undue burden.” Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the judge to quash a criminal subpoena if “compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.”

In civil cases, Rule 45 authorizes a court to quash a subpoena if: (i) there is not adequate time to comply; (ii) it requires travel greater than 100 miles for trial or deposition; (iii) it seeks privileged or protected materials; or (iv) it subjects any person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3). The party seeking to quash the motion bears the burden of proving any one of these factors. Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2004); Williams v. City of Dallas, 178 F.R.D. 103, 109 (N.D. Tex. 1998).

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17 authorizes a court to quash a subpoena for documents in a criminal case "if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c); United States v. Skilling, 2006 WL 1006622, at *1 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Although the Fifth Circuit has not established a test for determining whether a subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive, "the law presumes, however, that, 'absent a strong showing to the contrary, . . . a grand jury acts within the legitimate scope of its authority.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 115 F.3d 1240, 1244 (5th Cir. 1997) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Rule 17 does not address whether a subpoena for testimony may be quashed. Because it would preclude a grand jury from fully investigating sources related to its inquiry, the Fifth Circuit has been reluctant to grant motions to quash subpoenas for testimony, except where the grand jury has not acted in good faith. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 2001 WL 940433, 29 Media L. Rep. 2301 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished); see also United States v. Doe, 541 F.2d 490, 493 (5th Cir. 1976). Unless the grand jury is an "unreasonable, harassing, or oppressive instrument," it is acting in good faith. Id.

If a prompt motion is filed before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance, the court will quash or modify the subpoena if it finds the demands of the subpoena to be unreasonable or oppressive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c).

Subpoenas in criminal cases may not be overbroad or frivolous and must represent a good faith effort to identify evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). In civil cases, the subpoenaing party must avoid imposing undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1).

Subpoenas in criminal cases may not be overbroad or frivolous and must represent a good faith effort to identify evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). In civil cases, the subpoenaing party must avoid imposing undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) states that a party or attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). Accordingly, the court, where compliance with the subpoena is required, must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply. Id.

The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure permit a subpoenaed person to move to quash or modify a subpoena if the motion is made on a prompt or timely basis. ALA. R. CIV. P. 45 (c)(3)(A); ALA. R. CRIM. P. 17.3 (c).

There are no other elements that must be met before a subpoenaing party can overcome the reporter's privilege.

Alaska appellate courts have not had occasion to squarely address the existence or scope of a reporter's privilege. The same rules of criminal or civil procedure protecting third parties from frivolous, overly broad or unduly burdensome subpoenas in other contexts would apply to press subpoenas as well, and should be asserted along with the claim of a constitutional privilege as additional and alternate grounds for quashing a subpoena.

1. Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 45 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides several means for contesting frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoenas. If the party or attorney serving the subpoena fails to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on the subpoenaed party, the court may impose sanctions on the serving party or attorney. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1). If the subpoenaed person is not a party to the litigation, the court may issue an order to protect such person from any significant expense resulting from the mandated copying and inspection. See Rule 45(e)(2). The subpoenaed party may also file a motion in the superior court of the county in which the case is pending to quash or modify the subpoena.  The court must grant the motion to quash or modify if the subpoena:

(i) does not provide a reasonable time for compliance;

(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer to travel to a location other than the places specified in Rule 45(b)(3)(B);

(iii) requires the disclosure of privileged or protected information and no waiver or exception applies; or

(iv) subjects the responding party to an undue burden.

See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A).  The court may grant the motion to quash or modify if the subpoena:

(i) requires disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.

(ii) requires disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study that was not requested by a party;

(iii) it requires a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer to incur substantial travel expense; or

(iv) justice so requires.

If the demanding party shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot otherwise be obtained without undue hardship, and assures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated, the court may order an appearance or production of the requested materials subject to specified conditions. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(C).

1. Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 15.5(a) of the Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure states that the court may order, upon a showing of good cause, that disclosure of the identity of any witness be deferred, denied, or otherwise regulated when it finds:

(1) That the disclosure would result in a risk or harm outweighing any usefulness of the disclosure to any party; and

(2) That the risk cannot be eliminated by a less substantial restriction of discovery rights.

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.5(a).

The rules for challenging a subpoena are the same regardless of the ground on which it is challenged, including the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome or frivolous. A motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be filed within ten (10) days after receiving the subpoena or at any time before the time stated for compliance if that time is fewer than ten days. Ark. R. Civ. P. 45(e). A motion to quash a subpoena to compel testimony also should be filed in a timely manner. The same applies whether the matter is a civil case or a criminal case.

To protect a reporter against a risk of inadvertent waiver of the reporter’s rights, California law requires specific notice to the reporter and to the news organization that employs or contracts with the reporter, including, “at a minimum, an explanation of why the requested records will be of material assistance to the party seeking them and why alternate sources of information are not sufficient to avoid the need for the subpoena.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1986.1(b).

In addition, “[i]f a trial court holds a journalist in contempt  . . . , the court shall set forth findings, either in writing or on the record, stating at a minimum, why the information will be of material assistance to the party seeking the evidence, and why alternate sources of the information are not sufficient . . . .” Id. § 1986.1(c).

The civil and criminal rules permit a non-party to move to quash a subpoena that is frivolous or unduly burdensome. See Colo. R. Civ. P. 45; Colo. R. Crim. P. 17.

See statutes and Practice Book sections supra. General Statutes section 52-148e allows a court to quash a subpoena that is “unreasonable and oppressive.”

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly allow the subpoenaed party to contest a subpoena by moving to quash or, if the subpoena seeks records or inspection, by responding with written objections.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) & (d)(3).  The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure similarly authorize motions to quash, Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2), but on their face they allow for a recipient to “otherwise object” only where a subpoena “require[s] the production of personal or confidential information about a victim,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3).

The Rules of Civil Procedure dictate that overbroad and unduly burdensome subpoenas will be quashed or modified. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 45 (c)(3). If the materials are both unduly burdensome and "necessary," the party seeking the information must compensate the other party, or the Court may specify the conditions of production or appearance. Id.

The rules of procedure (both criminal and civil) allow the party receiving a subpoena to file a motion to quash.  SCR-Civ. 45(c)(3); SCR-Crim. 17(c)(2).

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280 and 1.410 govern objections to subpoenas in civil cases. These rules, in conjunction with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.361 and 3.220(h), should be used as the basis for objecting to subpoenas in criminal cases.

In response to a subpoena seeking testimony, Georgia allows the filing of a motion to quash. See generally O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-26(c). If a non-party receives a notice or subpoena to produce documents, Georgia procedure permits an objection in lieu of filing a motion to quash. See generally O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-34(c)(1); 9-11-45(a)(2).

Hawai'i's rules of civil and criminal procedure do not specify the methods for contesting frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoenas. A motion to quash is the means for objecting to a subpoena for in person testimony. Written objections may be filed within 10 days (or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if the time specified is less than 10 days) to a subpoena requesting inspection or copying of documents.

Idaho civil and criminal court rules contemplate the filing of a motion to quash or modify a subpoena contended to be unreasonable or oppressive.

The Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq., contains the rules of procedure in civil cases. The Reporters Privilege Statute is set forth at 735 ILCS 5/8-901, et seq.  The Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, see 725 ILCS 5/100-1, et seq., contains the rules of procedure in criminal cases.  The Illinois Supreme Court Rules and Local Rules of each Illinois Judicial District contain additional procedural rules.

A subpoenaed person may ask the court to modify or quash an overbroad or unduly burdensome subpoena. Ind. R. Crim. P. 2; Ind. Code § 35-37-5-2; Ind. R. Trial P. 34, 45(B). A person subpoenaed for the production of documents pursuant to Indiana Trial Procedure Rule 34 may also request a security deposit; propose different terms; or object specifically or generally to the request by written objection within 30 days of receipt of the subpoena. Ind. R. Trial P. 34(C).

Rule 1.1701(4)(d)(1)(3) of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a subpoena requiring disclosure of privileged information will be quashed by the court or modified to protect against disclosure of the privileged information. Rule 1.1701(4)(d)(1)(4) provides that an unduly burdensome subpoena will be modified or quashed by the court. Rule 1.1701(4)(a) of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the attorney responsible for the issuing of a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on the person subject to the subpoena. Rule 1.504 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party from whom impermissible discovery is sought may seek, and for good cause be granted, a protective order stopping the burdensome discovery request. In Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier, the Court directed that just such a protective order be entered on remand. 646 N.W.2d at 104. Rule 2.15(2) of the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a subpoena that is unreasonable or oppressive will be dismissed by the court upon motion for the same. Rule 2.14(6)(a)(3) allows the court to regulate discovery and issue protective orders to prohibit compelled disclosure of privileged information. The subpoenaed party may file a motion to quash based on any of the above-mentioned rules.

The state and federal rules of civil and criminal procedure contain rules permitting a non-party witness to seek a protective order with respect to a frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoena.

Subpoenas that are oppressive or unduly burdensome may be quashed or modified. Ky. R. Civ. P. 45.02; Ky. R. Crim. P. 7.02(3).

The general practice is to contest a frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoena with a motion to quash.

Both Rule 45 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 17 and 17A of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure permit protection from subpoenas that are overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.

The state court also considers the specificity and purpose of the information sought by the subpoena. In re Letellier, 578 A.2d 722, 728, 17 Media L. Rep. 2169 (1990) (holding in favor of allowing discovery because the district attorney’s request was “both limited and focused”).

The federal court in Maine has specified that a party serving a subpoena may not survive a motion to quash unless the party demonstrates “evidence of the elements of its claim other than that (or those) to which the discovery sought may apply before any such discovery may be sought from a reporter.” Levesque v. Doocy, 247 F.R.D. 55, 57–58 (D. Me. 2007).

A subpoena may be quashed for being "unreasonable or oppressive." Mass. R. Civ. P. 45; Mass. R. Crim. P. 17.

Michigan Court Rule 2.302(G)(3)(b)(ii) states that the signature of the party or their attorney certifies that the information included in the discovery request (subpoena) is not “interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” As referenced above, a violation of this rule could result in appropriate sanctions, including attorney’s fees for the party at fault. MCR 2.302(G)(4).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the sanction for violation is strikingly similar. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) requires that a party or their attorney who signs a discovery request represents that, “to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,” the request is “not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” In the event of a violation of the preceding rule, the court, either by motion of a party to the case or on its own volition, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signing party, which may include attorney’s fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).

Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 45 was amended in 2006 and now mirrors, virtually in its entirety, the federal counterpart. Rule 45.04(b) states, "When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged . . . the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim." Minn. R. Civ. P. 45.04(b).
In a civil action, Rule 45.03(b)(2) permits a written objection to a subpoena for documents, placing the burden on the attorney serving the subpoena to obtain a court order before the materials can be obtained ("[A] person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued."). The objection alone, however, does not relieve the person subpoenaed of the obligation either to appear at the deposition or to move to quash the deposition.
In a criminal action, Rule 22.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the district court on motion may quash or modify a subpoena for production of documentary evidence or objects, "if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." Rule 26.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure allows the district court to issue "any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense."

Miss. R. Civ. P. 45(f) provides that "upon a showing that the subpoena power is being exercised in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the party or the person upon whom the subpoena is served, the court in which the action is pending shall order that the subpoena be quashed and may enter such further orders as justice may require to curb abuses of the powers granted under this rule. To this end, the court may impose an appropriate sanction."

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.  In general, all subpoenas are treated alike, with the exception of the notation above in CBS, 645 S.W.2d at 33, that there was no evidence that the grand jury actions constituted impermissible harassment.

All subpoenas should be contested before the court or body that issues them.

A subpoena may be quashed or modified, or a protective order may be granted, if the subpoena fails to allow a reasonable amount of time for compliance; if it requires disclosure of privileged matters; or if it is unduly burdensome or designed to harass.

The rules of procedure provide that a motion to quash or motion for protective order may be filed to contest frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoenas. A timely objection to a subpoena may be made to the issuing party in civil cases that command production or permit inspection of documents and designated materials.  The person making the objection must serve it before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served.  NRCP 45(c)(2)(B). Sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys’ fees may also be sought, although they are granted more often in civil cases than in criminal cases. NRCP 45(c)(1).

Superior Court Rule 35 states the general guidelines governing discovery. Rule 35(c) articulates the standards and procedures to be followed in seeking a protective order in discovery matters.

If a newsperson is forced to move to quash a subpoena and the court finds there was no reasonable basis for requesting the information, it may award costs, including counsel fees, against the party seeking to enforce the subpoena.  N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21.8. As a practical matter fees and costs are almost never awarded.

Not addressed.

As a general matter, any subpoena can be contested by a motion to quash under § 2304 of the New York CPLR. Where a subpoena is "palpably overbroad," the court will not "prune the request to cull the good from the bad," but instead may simply grant the motion to quash in its entirety, though the court retains discretion to engage in such "culling." W. 16th Realty Co. v. Ali, 176 Misc.2d 978, 676 N.Y.S.2d 401, 403 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1998). This general rule applies equally to subpoenas issued to reporters and is an alternative basis for a motion to quash.

CPLR § 3103(a) grants the court power to fashion a protective order on its own initiative or by motion of any party or person "denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice to any person or the courts."

Rule 45 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure governs the procedure with respect to the issuance of subpoenas in both civil and criminal cases. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-801 (subpoena for witness in criminal cases) & 15A-802 (subpoena for production of documentary evidence in criminal cases). Rule 45(c)(3) permits the filing of a motion to quash for a variety of reasons, including that the subpoena is "unreasonable or oppressive."  This rule applies both to subpoenas duces tecum (i.e., subpoenas seeking the production of documents or things) and witness subpoenas.

The rules of procedure allow a party to object to a subpoena. Therefore, compliance is not required except upon court order. There are no special rules in order to object to a frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoena.

Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure available at  http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/civil/CivilProcedure.pdf

Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure available at http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf

The journalist’s privilege is equally applicable in civil or criminal proceedings, and we are not aware of any rules of procedure that alter that fact.

No statutory or case law addressing this issue.

In civil lawsuits, a reporter may object to a subpoena on the grounds that the material sought is not “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party” or the subpoena “would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party.” See Pa. R. Civ. P. 4003.1(a), 4011(b). In such cases, a reporter can obtain a protective order to limit the scope of the subpoena or prohibit the discovery completely. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 4012(a).

In criminal cases, a reporter may object to a subpoena that seeks irrelevant information or is overly broad. See Commonwealth v. Mejia-Arias, 734 A.2d 870, 878-79 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citing In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings Jacqueline Schofield, 486 F.2d 85, 91 (3d Cir. 1973) (“Among the defenses which may be presented in resisting a subpoena are the obvious constitutional defenses of unreasonable search and seizure, and self-incrimination[.] But many nonconstitutional defenses are also available, including undue breadth[] [and] improper inclusion of irrelevant information[.] . . .” (internal citations omitted)).

A reporter can challenge a grand jury subpoena where it seeks to recover information that is not relevant to the investigation. Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Cty. Investigating Grand Jury, 412 A.2d 556, 560-61 (Pa. 1980). Generally, grand jury subpoenas will not be quashed on grounds that they would cause an economic burden or are inconvenient. Id. at 562.

Civil and criminal rules of procedure apply to contest subpoenas.

The rules of civil procedure specifically provide for the filing of a motion to quash or for a protective order. There is not equivalent provision in the criminal procedure rules, but such motions are accepted by the courts.

Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 45 outlines the requirements for service of and compliance with civil subpoenas. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 45.07 provides that "the Court, upon motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, may . . . quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive." As to subpoenas calling for the production of documents or things, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(d)(2) provides that, "[o]n motion promptly and in any event by the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonably or oppressive."

Subpoenas can be contested as unduly burdensome (regardless of whether issued to a journalist or not). Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.7. The shield law also requires that the subpoena not be unduly burdensome in most cases. The reporter’s privilege expressly provides for a court to consider whether the subpoena at issue is overbroad, unreasonable or oppressive, or being used to obtain peripheral, non-essential or speculative information. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§22.024(2) and (5) and Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. art. 38.11, §§5(b)(1) and 5(b)(4).  This is not required to overcome the reporter’s privilege concerning criminal subpoenas seeking information concerning confidential sources.  In a civil case, the subject of the subpoena should file a Motion for Protection or a Motion to Quash. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192. In a criminal case or a response to a grand jury subpoena, a Motion to Quash is the appropriate pleading to file. One basis for objecting to pre-trial subpoenas in a criminal case is that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide pre-trial discovery. See Order Quashing Subpoena in State of Texas v. Coe, Cause No. 1227878 (Harris Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 15, 2010) (quashing subpoena issued by Coe on Non-Party Houston Community Newspapers).

A person who is subpoenaed to produce documents may serve a written objection on the attorney or party designated in the subpoena. Utah R. Civ. P. 45(e)(4)(e). In that case, the party that served the subpoena may not inspect the documents absent a court order obtained after the requesting party files a motion to compel production. Utah R. Civ. P. 45(e)(5). A person who is subpoenaed may file a motion to quash with the court from which a subpoena was issued if the person believes the subpoena is unreasonable or unduly burdensome, or the information sought is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See Utah R. Crim. P. 14(b); Utah R. Civ. P. 45(e); Utah R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) and 26(c).

No rules or reported cases.

A motion to quash should be directed to a frivolous subpoena, and either a motion to quash or modify the subpoena or a motion for a protective order should be directed to a burdensome one.

The civil and criminal rules of procedure do not differ significantly in this regard.

In a civil case, a subpoenaed party may make a motion to quash the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure if the subpoena is frivolous or unduly burdensome. The subpoenaed party also may make a motion for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26.

In a criminal case, a subpoenaed party may make a motion to quash the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure if compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable or oppressive. The subpoenaed party also may make a motion for a protective order pursuant to Rule 16(d).

A court may quash or modify by protective order a frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoena. See Wis. Stat. § 805.07(3).

Not applicable.