“[T]he law favors full access to relevant information.” (See Rheeder v. City of Marion (2021) 973 N.W.2d 875.)
“Modern rules of discovery seek to avoid surprise as a tactic in litigation. The purpose of discovery rules in litigation is to remove the element of surprise by letting each side know the available evidence.” (See Iowa Ins. Inst. v. Core Grp. of the Iowa Ass'n for Justice (2014) 859 N.W.2d 672.)
“The purpose of discovery is in part an effort to narrow the issues, ascertain the facts relative to those issues, and eliminate the need to conduct a trial in the dark or blindly.” (See Barks v. White (1985) 365 N.W.2d 640, 643; Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v. Riley (2015) 873 N.W.2d 301.)
“Parties are entitled to discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things, the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, and the identity of witnesses the party expects to call to testify at the trial.” (See Rheeder v. City of Marion (2021) 973 N.W.2d 875; Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.503(1).)
“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)
“A trial should be a search for the truth, and our rules of discovery are an avenue to achieving that goal. The discovery process seeks to make a trial into a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. To that end, these rules are to be liberally construed and shall be enforced to provide the parties with access to all relevant facts.” (See Estate of Ludwick v. Stryker Corp. (2014) 859 N.W.2d 671; Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv., Inc. (2012) 816 N.W.2d 378, 386; see also Iowa Rs. Civ. P. 1.501 –517.)
The “Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.517 allows the court to impose sanctions when it determines a party has failed to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” (See Carmichael v. Philpott, No. 17-0124, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2018); Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. v. Rowe (1988) 424 N.W.2d 235, 240; In re Marriage of Benson, No. 03-1388, 2005 WL 425461, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2005); In re Marriage of Butterfield (1993) 500 N.W.2d 95, 98; Wagner v. Miller (1996) 555 N.W.2d 246, 249.)
Rule 1.517 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery sanctions.
“If a party fails to make a disclosure required by rule 1.500, any other party may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517(1)(b)(1).)
“Any order granting a motion made under this rule shall include a statement that a failure to comply with the order may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to rule 1.517.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517(1)(b)(5).)
“No motion relating to depositions, discovery, or discovery sanctions may be filed with the clerk or considered by the court unless the motion alleges that the movant has in good faith personally spoken with or attempted to speak with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The certification must identify the date and time of any conference or attempts to confer.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517(5).)
“We review a trial court's imposition of a discovery sanction for an abuse of discretion.” (See Kendall/Hunt Publ'g Co. v. Rowe (1988) 424 N.W.2d 235, 240; Lorenson v. Ament (2009) 763 N.W.2d 276.)
“We do not reverse the district court's imposition of discovery sanctions unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Except in cases of drastic sanctions such as dismissal or default, [t]he district court has wide discretion in its decision of whether, or which, discovery sanction to impose.” (See Carmichael v. Philpott, No. 17-0124, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2018); Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. v. Rowe (1988) 424 N.W.2d 235, 240; In re Marriage of Benson, No. 03-1388, 2005 WL 425461, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2005); In re Marriage of Butterfield (1993) 500 N.W.2d 95, 98; Wagner v. Miller (1996) 555 N.W.2d 246, 249.)
“And generally, there is an abuse of discretion in imposing discovery sanctions only where there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling." (See id.)
It is well settled that "[d]iscovery shall be conducted in good faith, and responses to discovery requests, however made, shall fairly address and meet the substance of the request. Generally, noncompliance with discovery is not tolerated.” (See Estate of Ludwick v. Stryker Corp. (2014) 859 N.W.2d 671; Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv., Inc. (2012) 816 N.W.2d 378, 386; see also Iowa Rs. Civ. P. 1.501 –517.)
It is also well settled that “a party who responds to a discovery request has a duty to supplement or amend the response to include later acquired information on [a]ny matter that bears materially upon a claim or defense asserted by any party to the action." (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.503(4)(a)(3); Lorenson v. Ament (2009) 763 N.W.2d 276.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
