How would they quash the subpoenas? Do they ask the judge not to admit them? I've heard of cases where that happened, but I don't don't know the process. Are the subpoenas in Berrigan's court?
Based on what I read, the subpoenas were issued in the defamation case - so yes, in Berrigan's court. If a party wishes to challenge a subpoena as being improper for some reason, the proper procedure is to file a motion to quash. If the motion is granted, the subpoena is quashed (effectively withdrawn).
In this instance, the subpoenas issued by Vilma are discovery subpoenas. But discovery has not commenced yet (as far as I know) because the preliminary motion (motion to dismiss filed by Goodell) remains pending. So a motion to quash could argue that the subpoena is premature. (And just to note, there are other potential grounds to quash a subpoena).
How Berrigan would treat that remains to be seen, but either way, it is effective to remind the parties that the defamation case remains viable and Vilma deserves to know whether the case is going to move forward.