Short answer. Yes. Rule 21, Section 4 lets the court quash a subpoena duces tecum on motion promptly made — in any event at or before the time specified in it — if it is unreasonable and oppressive, if the relevancy of the documents does not appear, or if the reasonable cost of production is not advanced.
What the law says
The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.
Rule 21, Section 4 — Quashing a subpoena. Read the full provision →
Move promptly — the timing is part of the rule
The remedy exists, but it is time-boxed. The motion to quash must be promptly made and, in any event, at or before the time specified in the subpoena. Sitting on a defective subpoena and raising your objections after the compliance date has passed is exactly what the wording forecloses. So the first thing to note on receiving one is the date and time it commands you to appear or produce, because that fixes the outer limit for your motion — and prompt in practice means as soon as the defect is apparent, not on the eve of compliance.
Grounds against a subpoena duces tecum
For a subpoena requiring documents or things, the section gives three grounds. First, that it is unreasonable and oppressive — the classic complaint against a demand for years of records, sweeping categories, or material out of all proportion to the case. Second, that the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear: the party issuing it must be able to show what the material has to do with the issues. Third, that the requesting party fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof — the burden of producing is not meant to be financed by the person subpoenaed.
Grounds against a subpoena to testify
A subpoena ad testificandum — one that compels attendance to testify — can be quashed on the ground that the witness is not bound thereby, which raises whether the subpoena could validly reach that witness at all. And for either kind of subpoena, there is a further shared ground: it may be quashed on the ground that the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was served. That tender is due at service, so what happened at the moment the subpoena was handed over can itself decide the motion.
Building the motion
Match your facts to the ground. If the complaint is breadth, be concrete about why compliance is unreasonable and oppressive: the volume involved, the span of years, the disruption to work or business, any confidential character of the material. If the complaint is pertinence, put the issuing party to the task of showing relevancy, since the rule makes its absence a ground by itself. Keep the subpoena, its envelope, and a note of exactly what was — and was not — tendered when it was served. Then have counsel file promptly, because the strongest motion still fails the timing test if it comes too late.