Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01108/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FRANCIS S. L. WANG, 

Plaintiff, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 15 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1108 

PAUL HSU; C. V. CHEN; KWAN 

TAO LI; LEE AND LI, a 

partnership, 

______________ Defendant-Appellee, ) ) 

D. MICHAEL CLAYTON, 

Movant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 89-C-2208) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

D. Michael Clayton, prose. 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

D. Michael Clayton, a non-party deponent, appeals from the 

district court's denial of his motion for a protective order. We 

affirm.* 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-1108 Document: 01019953170 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 1 
Defendants in the underlying civil suit served Clayton with a 

deposition subpoena pursuant to Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P. on 

September 28, 1989. The subpoena commanded Clayton to appear and 

bring specified documents on November 7, 1989. Clayton did not 

file an objection to inspection or copying of the documents within 

ten days, as required by Rule 45(d)(l). Instead, on November 7 

Clayton appeared with the documents, allowed them to be inspected, 

but refused to allow them to be copied. Clayton's subsequent motion for a protective order was denied, first by a magistrate and 

then the district court judge. 

The decision to grant a protective order is vested in the 

district court's discretion. We will reverse only if that discretion is abused. In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d 625, 628 

(10th Cir. 1987). "An abuse of discretion occurs only when the 

trial court based its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law 

or where there is no rational basis in the evidence for the ruling." Id. (quoting In re Petroleum Products Antitrust Litig., 669 

F.2d 620, 623 (10th Cir. 1982)). 

At each stage, Clayton has argued that the plain language of 

Rule 45(d)(l) requires a subpoena duces tecum to specifically 

authorize inspection and copying of the materials to be produced. 

He argues that the right to inspect and copy is permissive not 

mandatory. 

We disagree. Clayton's argument was pre-empted twenty years 

ago by the 1970 amendments to Rule 45(d)(l). The Advisory 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1108 Document: 01019953170 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 2 
I 

I 

\ 

Committee's note accompanying the amendment explains: 

At present when a subpoena duces tecum is issued to a 

deponent, he is required to produce the listed materials 

at the deposition, but is under no clear compulsion to 

permit their inspection and copying. This results in 

confusion and uncertainty before the time the deposition 

is taken, with no mechanism provided whereby the court 

can resolve the matter. Rule 45(d)(l), as revised, 

makes clear that the subpoena authorizes inspection and 

copying of the materials produced. The deponent is afforded full protection since he can object, ...• 

Rule 45(d)(l) Fed. R. Civ. P. Advisory Committee Notes (emphasis 

added). 

We decline to return to "confusion and uncertainty." The 

subpoena commanding Clayton to produce documents simultaneously 

authorized their inspection and copying. Clayton was afforded 

full protection because he had the opportunity to object. He did 

not. Although Clayton orally objected at deposition, Rule 

45(d)(l) requires objection to inspection or copying to be made, 

in writing, within ten days after service of the subpoena. 

Clayton argues that he did not receive a list of the documents to 

be produced until November 7, 1989. He did not, however, file any 

sort of written objection until December 26, 1989. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion. We accordingly AFFIRM. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1108 Document: 01019953170 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 3