“The validity of the contempt order … depends on the correctness of the underlying  discovery order.” Greater Newburyport Clamshell Alliance v. Public Service Co., 838F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 01/29/1988), citing Hanley v. James McHugh Const. Co.,  419 F.2d 955, 957 (7th Cir. 1969).

 "The validity of an underlying discovery order, disobedience of which has led to an adjudication of contempt, may be challenged on appeal from the adjudication of contempt."  Matter of Roche, 381 Mass. 624, 625 n. 1, 411 N.E.2d 466 (1980).  We now review the rulings of the Superior Court judge denying a protective order and granting the motion to compel in order to determine whether they constituted an abuse of discretion.  See Sinnott v. Boston [46 Mass.App.Ct. 388] Retirement Bd., 402 Mass. 581, 585-586, 524 N.E.2d 100, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 980, 109 S.Ct. 528, 102 L.Ed.2d 560 (1988).

"An adjudication of civil contempt against a nonparty constitutes a final judgment appealable pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 1(c), 365 Mass. 844 (1974)," and "[the] validity of an underlying discovery order, disobedience of which [402 Mass. 586] has led to an adjudication of contempt, may be challenged on appeal from the adjudication of contempt,"  Matter of Roche, supra at 625 n. 1, 411 N.E.2d 466.   In these circumstances, we review the rulings of the Superior Court judge denying the motion to compel and granting a protective order.  Unless that ruling constituted an abuse of discretion, there is no basis for the judgment of contempt.  See  Baker v. F & F Inv., 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2147, 36 L.Ed.2d 686 (1973).  We discern no such abuse of discretion and, therefore, reverse the adjudication of civil contempt. 

The case is before us on Roche's expedited appeal from both the order by the single justice that he testify fully at the deposition and the subsequent order holding him in contempt for refusing to do so.  An adjudication of civil contempt against a nonparty constitutes a final judgment appealable pursuant to  Mass.R.A.P. 1(c), 365 Mass. 844 (1974).  . . .  This result is consistent with analogous Federal authority.   United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 1582, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971).  Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 327-328, 60 S.Ct. 540, 542, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940).