A similar process exists in Australia. It is a bit strange that the burden is on the recipient to object to an unlawful subpoena. I understand that it’s pretty common for vexatious litigants to issue subpoenas requiring politicians, governors and other public figures to attend court for cross-examination about a perceived injustice, and there is a bit of work involved in arranging for these to be set aside so that nobody ends up formally in contempt of court.
Subpoena power is a hell of a lot of leverage, and probably the biggest reason why all these terms-of-service agreements including binding arbitration. Like, if you can convince a small-claims court judge that it is relevant, it's definitely possible to subpoena high-level executives of multibillion dollar companies over a $100 dispute.
