Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion in Iowa

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“[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.)

“We construe discovery rules liberally in order to assist in the disclosure of all relevant and material information.” (See Willard v. State (2017) 893 N.W.2d 52, 62.)

“Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure…states that experts who are expected to testify at trial are to be identified, the subject matter of their testimony disclosed[,] and a summary of their opinion given in response to interrogatories in connection therewith by the adverse party.” (See Bratton v. Bond (1987) 408 N.W.2d 39, 41.)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

Rule 1.508 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs production of documents, and Rule 1.517 governs motions to compel.

“In addition to the disclosures and discovery provided pursuant to rules 1.500(2) and 1.516, discovery of facts known, mental impressions, and opinions held by an expert whom the other party expects to call as a witness at trial, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of rule 1.503(1) and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained as follows:

a. A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If rule 1.500(2)(b) requires a report from the expert, the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided.

b. Subject to rules 1.508(1)(d) and (e), a party may also obtain discovery of documents and tangible things including all tangible reports, physical models, compilations of data, and other material prepared by an expert or for an expert in anticipation of the expert's trial and deposition testimony. The disclosure of material prepared by an expert used for consultation is required even if it was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial when it forms a basis, either in whole or in part, of the opinions of an expert who is expected to be called as a witness.

c. Subject to rules 1.508(1)(d) and (e), if the discoverable factual observations, tests, supporting data, calculations, photographs, or opinions of an expert who will be called as a witness have not been recorded and reduced to tangible form, the court may order these matters be reduced to tangible form and produced within a reasonable time before the date of trial.”

(See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.508(1)(a), (b), and (c).)

"If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under rule 1.701 or 1.710, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under rule 1.707(5), or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under rule 1.509, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under rule 1.512, fails to produce documents, or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted, or fails to permit inspection, the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, a designation, or an inspection in accordance with the request.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“We review district court rulings on discovery matters for abuse of discretion.” (See Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc. (2018) 908 N.W.2d 235, 241; Jones v. Univ. of Iowa (2013) 836 N.W.2d 127, 139.)

“Discovery rulings are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." (See id; State v. Ary (2016) 877 N.W.2d 686, 702.)

"A district court abuses its discretion when the grounds underlying a district court order are clearly untenable or unreasonable." (See Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc. (2018) 908 N.W.2d 235, 241; Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Eagle Labs., Inc. (2015) 865 N.W.2d 528, 535; Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Inc. City of Spencer (2004) 682 N.W.2d 62, 66.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

It is well settled that “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. Perhaps most importantly, [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 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. 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. 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 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.)