From Time's Motion to Quash:

Mr. Libby is plainly seeking to learn about communications that may have occurred and documents that may exist--rather than request that specific documents be produced. It is well-settled that Rule 17 does not provide a basis for this type of fishing expedition.

....the subpoena is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it intrudes on and disrupts newsgathering activities protected under the First Amendment. The subpoena demands, among other things, communications between reporters and editors, as well as communications between reporters and sources. The subpoena also demands draft articles, unpublished notes and information collected in the course of newsgathering, and would reveal the thought processes of reporters and editors in discussing, writing and editing news stories--including articles that postdate events at issue in the indictment by more than two years, such as Mr. Cooper's two articles about his own grand jury testimony.

In a footnote, Time argues:

The subpoena is also insufficiently specific. Request #2, for example, demands "[a]ll documents, whenever prepared or received, indicating or suggesting that any employee or agent of Time Inc. other than Matthew Cooper was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was employed by the CIA." This request purports to require Time to make a determination of whether a document "suggest[s]" that an agent of Time had a particular piece of knowledge.

As to Judith Miller, she makes many of the same arguments in her motion to quash, particularly objecting to Libby's broad request for documents over a six week period, from June 7 to July 14, including phone records, her professional calendar and notes which are not limited to Libby or the Wilsons or this case.