Also known as: unreasonably oppressive · oppressive or unreasonable · oppressive · unconscionable
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A ground for quashing or modifying a subpoena when compliance would impose excessive burden or hardship on the recipient.
Umeko Uchida received a grand-jury subpoena for all financial records after a land-sale dispute. When she moved to quash, the court found that producing ten years of unrelated documents would be unreasonable or oppressive and limited the subpoena's scope.
Uma Upadhyay was served with a subpoena demanding every repair invoice and lease document from a disputed equipment transaction. She showed the volume and cost of compliance. The court quashed the demand because it was unreasonable or oppressive.
Ursula Upton received a subpoena for five years of personal bank records in her divorce proceeding. The court granted her motion to quash after finding that the breadth of the demand made compliance unreasonable or oppressive.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Una Unger was subpoenaed for all medical and financial records after a premarital-agreement dispute. Because assembling the materials would impose unreasonable or oppressive cost and delay, the court modified the subpoena to cover only the relevant period.
Una Ueda received a subpoena demanding ten years of personal financial records for a grand jury investigation into a single transaction. She moved to quash, showing the volume of material and privacy invasion. The court granted the motion because compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
Uptown Apparel's minority shareholders received subpoenas for every corporate email and financial statement. The court quashed the demands after finding that the volume and cost of compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
The moving party must demonstrate that compliance would impose excessive burden, cost, or hardship. Courts consider the volume of material, time required, privacy interests, and whether the demand is narrowly tailored to a legitimate need.
No. The same phrase or closely analogous language appears in rules governing protective orders in civil discovery and in statutes addressing oppressive conduct by corporate controllers.
The court examines the commercial setting, purpose, and effect at the time of formation, including gross disparity in value, defects in the bargaining process, and whether enforcement would produce an unconscionable result.