What constitutes an objection to a subpoena based on 'oppression'?

An objection to a subpoena based on 'oppression' is best understood as a challenge to the subpoena on the grounds that it is overly burdensome or vague. In this context, 'oppression' refers to the notion that compliance with the subpoena would excessively strain the resources of the person or entity being subpoenaed, either in terms of time, cost, or effort.

When a subpoena is deemed overly burdensome, it typically means that the demand for documents or testimony is disproportionate to the needs of the case or exceeds what is necessary to resolve the issues at hand. For example, if a subpoena requests an extensive volume of documents that are not closely related to the case, or if it is not sufficiently clear about what is being sought, a party could argue that responding would impose an unfair burden.

Vagueness can also contribute to the assertion of oppression, as an unclear request may lead to significant difficulty in determining what information is actually required. Thus, this ambiguity can create additional challenges and costs, which can be deemed oppressive.

Other factors listed as options, such as relevance, legal grounding, or the sheer number of documents requested, may constitute separate grounds for objecting to a subpoena but do not specifically relate to the concept of 'oppression