burden on a party when [it] is overbroad.” In re Subpoena Duces Tecum., 550 F.Supp.2d at 612. Additionally, the burden of proof is with the party objecting to the discovery to establish that the challenged production should not be permitted. See Finley v. Trent, 955 F.Supp. 642, 648 (N.D.W.Va.1997) (citing Castle v. Jallah, 142 F.R.D. 618, 620 (E.D.Va.1992)). Here, Defendant’s subpoenas duces tecum are both overbroad and not tailored to a particular purpose. Indeed, although Defendant asserts that its subpoenas are appropriately tailored to seek relevant information, its subpoenas, instead, command the production of “[t]he complete employment file of [Plaintiff], including application, evaluations, payroll records, corr 10-8041-PCT-FJM, 2010 WL 4607402, at *1 (D.Ariz. Nov. 4, 2010) (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., No.
holding subpoena of entire personnel file from former employers was overbroad holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act holding that the former husbands property from a noninterspousal gift may not be distributed under section 610751 although use of the former husbands separate property may be awarded to the former wife to satisfy the former husbands child support obligation holding that former employees subjective belief that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination without more is not enough to survive former employers summary judgment motion holding that employers have standing to sue