*1 factors, for pertinent ant and Haynes, v. Cave parole board. 39; Daven 268 N.W. 351.” N.W.
port, 149 Iowa concur.
All Justices Minor, by Jr., Robert A. JONES, A.
Robert Friend; Sr., Next Jones, his father Individually, Jones, Sr., Robert A. Jones, Appellants, Irene D. SWANGER, Appellee.
James A.
Supreme of Iowa. Court
6,May Phelan, Madison,
Joseph ap- L. Fort pellants. Harris, Bloomfield,
D. and Stong W. & Keosauqua, appellee. Dorothy, LARSON, Justice. damages personal
In an action for accident, jury as a of an automobile plaintiffs’ petition and de- fendant’s but swer, plaintiffs application 7Q3 *2 e., papers, thereon, statements production ing had July court, i. but on 25 the adjustor pared by entry, defendant’s automobile calendar plaintiffs’ ap- overruled patients signed by plaintiffs while at a and plication entirety, citing in its rule 141(a), hospital. application this When was de- provides: This the rule R.C.P. nied, improvi- plaintiffs sought and were deponent The “(a) required shall not be
dently permission appeal to this granted to and deponent the court shall not or order court.
party produce inspection to or submit for issue to be considered at this any writing prepared by obtained or 129, time is whether under rule R.C.P., party, attorney, surety, adverse indemni- plaintiffs requir- were entitled an to order tor or in agent, anticipation or litigation produce copies ing defendant to of the preparation trial unless satisfied that not, they statements taken. We hold were production inspection the denial of or will stage proceedings of the injustice at in an hardship; or undue deponent court’s was correct. required nor be or shall deponent party produce court order a or 129, I. Rule Rules of Civil inspection any part or submit for aof writ- provides: ing attorney’s which reflects an mental im- pressions, conclusions, opinions legal or action, “(a) any After issue is in or, theories, provided in rule any application file an for the party expert. the conclusions of an The deponent production inspection or shall not examined on nor shall the court papers, not privileged, production which are in the inspection order the or liability policy indemnity insurance control of which are ma- liability unless such insurance cause, terial a just determination of the indemnity agreement policy would be purpose inspected for the having them admissible in at evidence the trial of the copied photostated. application action.” particularity shall with reasonable state papers for, or books are called application In permis their they
state wherein are to a material appeal, plaintiffs heavily sion relied on cause, determination of the and state that provision they claiming had shown a of the from they the control under inspection denial of re would production requested. whom The movant hardship, sult in an undue need not use such documents evidence clearly appeared there abuse trial. of the court’s discretion this denial. trial cause, light we take of this view “(b) The court shall fix the time and dispute. not reach the of that do merits place hearing application, on However, may again since this issue con prescribe the of giving manner form by timely application, front trial court from whom notice pursuant hear we note to notice and asked, attorney or to his of record.” ing application on an made the issue application Plaintiffs’ motion or herein joined, discovery are to be rules of July 18, on filed liberally interpreted (Jones v. petition alleging good Iowa, their 5th cause Highway Commission, 157 N.W.2d June action several counts. Defendant had trial court is 87) vested with control, entered his limit, pre 17 filed discretion to even June a motion a motion promote to dismiss and to strike vent when will not upon by which were ruled justice particu in a administration of June Apparently Sesker, court on notice lar case. Kaltenheuser 255 Iowa defendant of filing ; and no hear- 674 23 Am.Jur. Discovery, 149. This 2d, (a) result if Depositions and rule forecasts the same § discretion, is not unlimited. application is There- when made. Commission, Highway appear it would the observations v. Iowa State fore Jones utilized power to be a trial matter supra. It court’s benefit when the said equivocal. impartially anew are justly is raised too principles relevant, equitable legal, and The real here is whether *3 a facts of available readily all known or procure copy a his own written state- can of jus that end given issue the prior prior appear- ment to trial or nearly See effectuated. be more tice take deposition. ance to his should We Stores, Inc., 257 HyVee Food Cogley clearly state that person gives who a 310, 312. written or recorded verbal statement is request. a If upon entitled to of it in this case the record II. From pro- the is reduced to filed on answer was appears defendant’s statement, ceeding get his of own days plaintiffs’ after eleven fail- should be ordered and filed, and papers was application to produce ure so conclusively order should be days denied the court had four after would, sumed to be denial which Thus, squarely we are faced application. rule, words of “result in un- rule 129 question to whether with hardship.” due complied prerequisite as a must be with in any application Fleming James, Jr., See Civil hold papers. We spection of 6.10, “Special necessity section page 212-: strictly complied it must be with should also be found where the discoverer ap such an joined can seeking his own statement that of the court. plication be considered party. place, In the first such state- says, appli rule means always ments are potential evi- substantive was have such as we here which cation against dence making them be re must filed before issue as we have seen that jus- should suffice This is what jected premature. tify discovery. respect party In this state- did, must af we and on basis ments different from statements of firm its action. nonparty if admissible, which are witnesses all, only for purposes of impeaching Beyond that, witness. where a seeks BECKER, All concur inspect his prior statement, own taken Justices MASON, JJ., who concur STUART by the other rep- side before the specially. by counsel, resented widespread there is a feeling on the legisla- courts concurring).
BECKER, (specially Justice tures decency common fairness and re- quire that he given chance. plaintiff I concur it is clear because spite of this have some courts dis- denied production of books covery party’s of a own How- filed. answer documents before unless there is an additional ever, decision apparent it is the trial court’s necessity.” informa- character is based on the filing. strong A timing rather than the stand tion on this matter would fully upon justified by in this Rule which turn Bar As- American compact the trial court. Ob- not sociation’s with the insur- considered various companies viously basis ance insurance adjusters,1 the court’s approved by: tion, 1. It has been National Board Fire Underwrit Association, ers, Independent Alli American Mutual National Association of Surety Casualty Adjusters ance, Insurance Association National Companies, Independent International Associa Claim Insurers. “ * * * (b) . part: reads .any wit- interview may properly Iowa, Appellee, STATE witnesses, without nesses, prospective * * . party. opposing counsel consent of Eugene Anthony BESTER, Appellant. making signed state- “If witness he shall be requests, ment so Supreme Court Iowa. thereof. May 6, 1969. March meeting At a “Note: agreed.:-,(1) that' Committee Conference to all applies witnesses— language witness- and neutral plaintiff’s, defendant’s
es; placed limit that no time *4 this state- requesting
the witness fur-
ment; obligation that the the statement runs
nish the Martin- the witness himself or herself.” Directory, Ill, pages Law Vol.
dale-Hubbell
144A and 145A.
Of course there is no
lawyers here are members involved Bar or that adjusters
surance or insurance
are even in this much bound less Further, agreement. quite true pay court and the trial court need compact. fact, one
no heed to the pay agreement much heed
seems Company the Martindale-Hubbell compacts faithfully reprints year.
the American Association each
Nevertheless, quoted portion recognition affords namely, principle;
should be a self-evident
when a recorded is taken from bystander,
person, be he witness or should be entitled to a upon request. the statement minimize ef-
We should continue to game of chance that
fects of
adversary system. plainly I would indi- that, proper
cate request, plaintiff should be entitled
to his' own statement wherever and made, possession if it de-
whomever representative.
fendant or his MASON, JJ., join
STUART and
special concurrence.