Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, “Notes on Proposed Amendments to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 27 Dicta 165 (1950). For article, “Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). For article, “Trials: Rules 38-53 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 571 (1951). For article, “A Deposition Primer, Part I: Setting Up the Deposition”, see 11 Colo. Law. 938 (1982). For article, “Taking Evidence Abroad for Use in Litigation in Colorado”, see 14 Colo. Law. 523 (1985). For article, “Rule 34(c): Discovery of Non-Party Land and Large Intangible Things”, see 14 Colo. Law. 562 (1985). For article, “Securing the Attendance of a Witness at a Deposition”, see 15 Colo. Law. 2000 (1986). For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association on Use of Subpoenas in Civil Proceedings, see 19 Colo. Law. 1556 (1990). For article, “New CRCP 45 Impacts Medical Records Subpoenas and Tracks Federal Rule”, see 42 Colo. Law. 23 (January 2013). For article, “The Changes to Colorado and Federal Civil Rule 45 “, see 42 Colo. Law. 57 (December 2013). Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Applied in Stubblefield v. District Court, 198 Colo. 569, 603 P.2d 559 (1979); Black ex rel. Bayless v. Cullar, 665 P.2d 1029 (Colo. App. 1983). II. Attendance of Witnesses. Protections not grounds for quashing subpoena. It was error for trial court to quash subpoena of a witness on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. These protections may be asserted at trial as a bar to specific questions, but are not grounds for quashing a subpoena properly issued. South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 698 P.2d 1369 (Colo. App. 1984). A motion to quash subpoenas issued to third persons allegedly contributing to support of children is properly granted where the voluntary donations of such parties have nothing to do with a defendant’s duty to support children. Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480, 382 P.2d 809 (1963). III. Production of Documentary Evidence. A party seeking a “subpoena duces tecum” requiring production of documents by the other party must show good cause for the issuance of such a subpoena. Lee v. Missouri P. R. R. 152 Colo. 179, 381 P.2d 35 (1963). A “tangible thing” described in section (b) does not include real estate or fixtures. Thompson v. Thornton, 198 P.3d 1281 (Colo. App. 2008). For purposes of section (b), a subpoena duces tecum cannot compel the inspection of premises. Thompson v. Thornton, 198 P.3d 1281 (Colo. App. 2008). This rule must be read in conjunction with C.R.C.P. 34, governing the production of documents. Lee v. Missouri P. R. R., 152 Colo. 179, 381 P.2d 35 (1963). Colorado rules of civil procedure are not directly applicable to enforcement proceedings under the securities act. However, a court may consider the policies underlying section (b) of this rule in ruling on a motion for the advancement of costs incurred in complying with an administrative subpoena. Feigin v. Colo. Nat’l Bank, 897 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1995). In the exercise of their equitable authority, district courts may quash an administrative subpoena found to be unreasonable or oppressive. Feigin v. Colo. Nat’l Bank, 897 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1995). Where it was shown that a claim agent of a railroad could not give coherent story of an accident he investigated without first refreshing his memory from the file of such investigation, such evidence was sufficient to show good cause for the production of the file and it was error to quash a “subpoena duces tecum”. Lee v. Missouri P. R. R., 152 Colo. 179, 381 P.2d 35 (1963). Trial court did not have discretion to order disclosure of psychologist’s records during discovery, even for in camera review. Absent a clear waiver of psychologist-patient privilege, a trial court may not review documents related to a patient’s treatment even in camera. People v. Sisneros, 55 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2002). Taxpayer has standing to raise legitimacy of access to records in motion to quash subpoena. Once the court allows intervention in a § 39-21-112 proceeding, it follows that a taxpayer with an expectation of privacy in his bank records has standing to raise the legitimacy of governmental access to the records in a motion to quash the subpoena for the records. Charnes v. DiGiacomo, 200 Colo. 94, 612 P.2d 1117 (1980). As a general rule, recipients of subpoenas in criminal proceedings must assume the cost of compliance as a matter of civic responsibility. However, an individualized determination is called for when it is claimed that the cost of compliance with a subpoena renders the subpoena itself unreasonable and oppressive. The person seeking to quash an administrative subpoena on such grounds has the burden of establishing the precise amount of the cost and that such amount exceeds the amount the recipient would reasonably be expected to incur as a civic responsibility. Feigin v. Colo. Nat’l Bank, 897 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1995). If an attorney desires to receive subpoenaed documents from a subpoenaed witness in advance of the time and place specified in the subpoena, or if the subpoenaed witness offers to produce the documents ahead of time, the attorney must confer with and obtain consent from all other parties to the case as well as the subpoenaed witness. If the other parties or the subpoenaed witness does not consent, then production must wait until the time and place of the event specified in the subpoena. Obtaining consent for the advance production of subpoenaed documents not only satisfies the procedural safeguards of this rule but also affords pragmatic accommodation to the realities of litigation practice. In re Wiggins, 2012 CO 44, 279 P.3d 1. Manner by which father’s attorney obtained mother’s former employment file and any other documents from mother’s former place of employment in response to a subpoena violated rule. Rule requires that, unless subpoenaed witness and other parties consent to an alternate arrangement or by other court order, subpoenaed documents be produced only at the deposition, hearing, or trial specified in the subpoena. Attorney’s unilateral arrangements violated rule because they prevented mother from having an opportunity to object to the subpoena before her entire employment file was disclosed. In re Wiggins, 2012 CO 44, 279 P.3d 1. IV. Service. Failure to find “good cause” for serving subpoena fewer than 48 hours in advance of appearance or to grant continuance held abuse of discretion. Montoya v. Career Serv. Bd., 708 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1985). Subpoenas that were served on Friday morning, directing the witnesses to appear on Monday morning, were not served 48 hours before the time the witnesses were to appear and were properly quashed. Wilkerson v. State, 830 P.2d 1121 (Colo. App. 1992). Service on registered agent. Personal delivery of interrogatories on foreign corporation’s registered agent constitutes effective service. Isis Litig., L.L.C., v. Svensk Filmindustri, 170 P.3d 742 (Colo. App. 2007). V. Depositions. Section (d)(2) of this rule, relating to nonresidents, is limited solely to those persons who are either parties to the action or witnesses therein, both of which classes of nonresidents must first have been properly served in the action in order to subject them to the jurisdiction of the court, unless they have waived or consented to the jurisdiction of a Colorado court. Solliday v. District Court, 135 Colo. 489, 313 P.2d 1000 (1957); Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Att’y Gen. v. District Court, 155 Colo. 521, 395 P.2d 601 (1964). This rule, as applied to nonresidents not parties to an action in Colorado and not served in Colorado, is subject to the implied limitations that nonresidents are subject to jurisdiction due to mutual compact or uniform act. Solliday v. District Court, 135 Colo. 489, 313 P.2d 1000 (1957); Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Att’y Gen. v. District Court, 155 Colo. 521, 395 P.2d 601 (1964). Applied in CeBuzz, Inc. v. Sniderman, 171 Colo. 246, 466 P.2d 457 (1970). VI. Hearing or Trial. The refusal to reopen a compensation case for the purpose of taking testimony from a witness is not error where there was no showing that any subpoena was issued under the provisions of section (e) of this rule. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 111 Colo. 470, 143 P.2d 267 (1943).

For manner of proof of service of process, see C.R.C.P. 4(i); for scope of discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26(b); for protective orders in discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26(c); for notice of taking depositions, see C.R.C.P. 30(b) and 31(a).