Motion to Compel Depositions in Iowa

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Depositions

“[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.)

“Under our rules every deposition has a dual purpose, to discover and possibly to be used at trial as evidence.” (See Osborn v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (1980) 290 N.W.2d 893, 899.)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Compel Depositions

Sections 1.701-1.718 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure govern depositions, and Rule 1.517 governs motions to compel.

“When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before moving for an order.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517(3).)

“Any party may, by deposition upon oral examination, take the testimony of any person, including a party, without leave of court except as provided in rule 1.701(b). The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena as provided in rule 1.715.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.701(1)(a).)

“A motion for an order to a party may be made to the court in which the action is pending, or, on matters relating to a deposition, to the court in the district where the deposition is being taken. A motion for an order to a deponent who is not a party shall be made to the court in the district where the deposition is being taken.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Depositions

“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 Depositions

It is well settled that “a trial should be a search for the truth, and our rules of discovery are an 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.)