*1 wages that’lost developed Springer since properly are recoverable and

are damages in a employee’s part of an

sidered discharge claim. retaliatory

wrongful or Damages.

IV. Punitive refused to allow

The district court damages to be sub punitive issue of Springer cross-appeals jury.

mitted to the ruling.

from this 686-87, Smith, dis- N.W.2d at we damages. punitive

allowed an award there prior Springer

We observed action recognized no cause of discharge arising from a retaliatory compensation benefits.

claim for workers’ punish will not an actor

We stated that we cannot know to that the actor

for conduct place actions took wrong. Since Weeks’ recognizing the tort of retali-

prior to our discharge,

atory wrongful punitive dam-

correctly refused to allow the jury.

age claim to be submitted the issues have considered all of

We cross-appeal

raised both ap- error.

and find no reversible Costs against seventy-five percent

peal are taxed against twenty-five percent

Weeks and

Springer.

AFFIRMED. UTHE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. FAMILY AMUSEMENT

TIME-OUT

CENTERS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-1890. Appeals of Iowa.

Court 25, 1991.

June *2 a number of amusement

Defendant has centers, including the one in Des Moines plaintiff employed. Plaintiff was where initially employed part-time as a at- was to a in December 1987 and went tendant July The store attendant in full-time July, manager was to leave Des Moines began plaintiff train to take over and he manager. July plaintiff In was as store charge store and visited left in supervi- by supervisor. Plaintiff saw and taking promotional some T-shirts sor caps. reported him. baseball problems pri- Plaintiff contended he had no report. to the time of the Defendant plaintiff problems prior to contended had report. the time of the defendant, August for a number reasons, promota- decided was not manager him to look ble to store and told employment. September for other On 1988, plaintiff terminated. promotional the removal of the After items, tape recording all plaintiff started supervisors. conversations with his supervisors the conversa- were not aware being recorded. tions employment Plaintiff had no written Mann, Mann, Des of Mann & Thomas Jr. provided employee’s an tract but defendant Moines, plaintiff-appellant. for disagreement manual. There is substantial store, at the about the course of events Sidney, Mark of Grefe & J. Wiedenfeld promised and the rea- what Moines, defendant-appellee. Des for discharge. for his sons OXBERGER, C.J., and by Considered plaintiff filed this discharge, After his HABHAB, and JJ. SACKETT against contending he had suit wrongfully discharged in violation of SACKETT, Judge. public policy, and defendant breached employee for implied This is an action him dis- contract it implied employment contract charging just breach of an him cause. Plaintiff without wrongful discharge employment. from employee personnel and manual contended employee, plaintiff-appellant part employ- he received constituted Uthe, following a for the appeals verdict Plain- ment contract defendant breached. defendant-appellee fraudulently misrep- Time-Out employer, alleged defendant tiff Centers, Family Amusement Inc. Plaintiff promoted resented he would be store (1) failing in: manager job. contends the trial court erred if he could do the he showed evidence, jury had admitted certain found hearing to rule the defendant After timely respond plain- defendant, by failing facts district court dis- and the admissions; (2) denying appeals. tiff’s missed claim. Plaintiff plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict I. judgment notwithstanding the motion for (3) advances the verdict; failing certain finding plaintiff’s requests for erred in not affirm. evidence. We twenty- party qualify that a the party’s Plaintiff filed answer admitted. admission admission, seeking deny only part defen- matter of requests for one requested, par- that al- which an admission is to certain events dant’s ty specify and de- shall so much of it as is true between legedly occurred *3 qualify deny Plaintiff first con- and or the remainder. An employees. fendant’s answering party may give not time- responses were lack of tends defendant’s knowledge should information or as a reason therefore all be for ly and deny party contends the failure to admit or unless the admitted. Defendant deemed timely considering mailing party states that the has made responses were reason- Saturdays Sundays. inquiry able and that the times and information responses readily party for known or the right to file late obtainable party in the district court’s dis- is insufficient to enable the to ad- admission rests cretion, except deny. mit party not be disturbed A who considers that which will Co., for an abuse. Allied & a matter of which an admission has been Gas Chem. Co., requested presents genuine Federated Mut. Ins. 332 issue for Inc. v. (Iowa 1983), not, alone, may ground re- on that 877 after ob- N.W.2d (Iowa 1985); ject request; party may, to the the mand 365 N.W.2d 26 see also sub- Estate, 134(c), ject N.W.2d to the re Eickman 291 R.C.P. 1980). (Iowa deny why The trial court did not the matter or set forth reasons party deny allowing discretion in defendant’s the cannot admit or it. abuse its responses. party requested who has the ad- may mission move to determine the suffi- re- Plaintiff next contends defendant’s objections. ciency of the answers or Un- timely, if such that sponses, even objec- the court that an less determines requests. Iowa R.Civ.P. they admitted justified, tion is it shall order that an applicable part: in provides served. If the court deter- answer be may upon any other A serve comply that an answer does not mines request the admis- party a written rule, requirements may of this sion, pending action purposes of the that the matter is admitted order either any only, of the truth of matters within that an amended answer be served. scope 122 set forth in the of R.C.P. orders, in may, The court lieu of these opin- request that relate to statements or disposition final determine that application ions of fact or of the of law to request pretrial made at a conference be fact, including genuineness any designated prior time to trial. or at a request. described in the documents ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] sk ^[*] twenty-one two of the Defendant denied is Each matter of which gave following answer to requests and requested separately shall set forth. be nineteen: unless, The matter is admitted within obviously is request This thirty days request, after service of the between derived from conversations longer such shorter or time as or within allow, Richard Uthe and Time-Out the court on motion Centers, Inc., em- Family Amusement request serves to whom the is directed apparent- ployee. The conversation party requesting the admission upon the by plaintiff recorded ly tape objection answer or addressed a written knowledge per- matter, byor Uthe without signed speak- he was persons with whom attorney.... The answer son or party’s surreptitiously tapes those ing. specifically deny the matter or set shall presumably conversations will why the an- recorded in detail the reasons forth said in of what was truthfully the best evidence swering party cannot admit or fairly subject conversations. A shall deny the matter. denial in the transcript are plaintiff’s first requested ad- meet the substance of the and de- plaintiff’s counsel mission, requires possession of good and when faith yet opportunity not amend its answers. The trial court’s has not fendant ruling gained and his came after access inspect them. Thus position in to deter- counsel are a better subject in mine what was said primary purpose A Iowa versation. 127 is to allow a matter to be R.Civ.P. pro- for admission was conclusively pending established ac shortly plaintiffs after counsel pounded pro tion. which R.Civ.P. employees deposed all of the Time-Out part: vides in relevant in the mat- having any involvement Uthe Any matter admitted under R.C.P. 127 opportu- had the ter. Plaintiff’s counsel conclusively pending is established *4 inquire subject during this nity to on permits unless the action court on motion transcripts so. The depositions and did or withdrawal amendment of the admis- evidence of depositions of the are better sion .... recollec- these matters than counsel’s inquiry That or further information deposition transcripts are tions. The required request to answer a is no excuse. equally plaintiff to and his accessible Estate, In re Eickman 291 N.W.2d See counsel. 308, (Iowa 1980). Responses 310 must be request This cannot be admitted or de- person’s knowledge made on based or nied the information is within because capable acquiring. that he or she is of plaintiff. possession Lines, Inc., Anderson v. United Air 49 cop- are directed to their and his counsel 144, (S.D.N.Y.1969). F.R.D. 149 needWe depositions, transcripts ies of the to their question of not address whether at conversations, secretly recorded due, response time defendant’s plaintiff’s tapes themselves. plaintiff tapes still fact tran- request admitted or de- cannot be scripts the defendant from admit- excused pre- nied for the further reason that the ting denying requested or admissions. wording cise of the conversation referred By plain- the time the trial court ruled on defendant at this

to is not known to the motion, tiff’s the defendant had had the time. tapes for considerable time and had not asking Plaintiff filed a motion the trial request. admitted or denied the The state- defendant had admitted court to declare having ments never been denied stood ad- the matters contained finding mitted. The trial court erred in were not denied. The trial they were denied. just prior the mo- court to overruled However, the error does not afford the tion. The trial court found the admissions plaintiff plaintiff proved a new trial. The argues respons- were denied. Plaintiff requested all admissions. given es were not sufficient to constitute a provided respect 127 that with to a R.Civ.P. denial, and the answers should have been sufficiency motion to determine the of an- plain- argues deemed admitted. Defendant swer, 134(c) of Iowa R.Civ.P. prejudiced not

tiff was because 134(c) provides: apply. Iowa R.Civ.P. proved everything he asked defendant to genuineness If a to fails admit admit. any any document or the truth of 127, requested under

After the matter as R.C.P. served, thirty party requesting days the defendant had and if the the admis- object. proves genuineness or thereafter to answer See Committee on sions Ethics, Roberts, Etc. v. 246 N.W.2d of the document or the truth of the mat- Prof. 259, (Iowa 1976). ter, may apply to the court for an Under Iowa R.Civ.P. he right request requiring pay 127 defendant also had the to to order requests. him additional time to answer the the reasonable incurred request making proof, including Defendant did not additional time. filed, The court shall make attorney’s After defendant’s answers were de fees. gained fendant did the order unless it finds that access but (1) request objectionable was held The also the trial contends pursuant to R.C.P. should have admitted a series of other tapes. (2) authority Plaintiff cites no sup- sought no port proposition. his importance, or We find no abuse substantial in the trial discretion court’s refusal (3) failing to admit had rea- admit other ground might sonable to believe that he matter, prevail on the last contended the trial (4) good There other reason in refusing court erred to admit a notice the failure to admit. from Service indicating Job defendant did 134(c). plaintiff’s recourse was under not show misconduct. Plaintiff Plaintiff made no rule. this contends the notice is admissible. He cites We therefore need address the issue Adair County, Norton v. 441 N.W.2d whether would be entitled relief (Iowa 1989), as for his authority propo under this rule. Norton, plaintiff seeking sition. In sup port II. he discharged claim had been from *5 employment proper sought without cause Plaintiff next contends he should to introduce a Job Service decision as an have had a verdict on directed certain is supreme exhibit. The court determined the sues. plaintiffs The trial court submitted trial had not court abused its discretion in wrongful discharge, claims for of breach allowing introduction of the evidence. Id. contract, misrepresentation. and fraudulent Plaintiff the contends trial court should ignores What argument the is have decided issues in as a these his favor objected on exhibit foun- law, matter granted of and should have dational grounds. proffered The exhibit judgment him a notwithstanding ver alleged copy was an of the Job Service dict. decision, but was not certified or authen- argument. We find no to this The merit judicial a ticated. As record of an adminis- replete record is disputes with factual on Iowa, in trative tribunal it should have all these trial cor- issues. The court was require- to meet certified foundational in overruling plaintiff’s rect for di- motion generally, ments. Iowa Code 622.- See § rected verdict motion for judgment not- certified, 53. Because it was not the trial withstanding on grounds. the verdict these court properly sustained the defendant’s objection to its admission on foundational III. grounds. challenges Plaintiff several eviden- AFFIRMED. tiary rulings. Plaintiff contends the admitting court erred in an re evaluation

port report from the store. The ad OXBERGER, C.J., concurs.

missible as a business record. Iowa HABHAB, J., specially concurs. 803(6); R.Evid. v. Propps, State (Iowa 1985). N.W.2d 620-21 HABHAB, Judge, specially concurring. Plaintiff contends the trial court specially I concur in the result reached failing erred in admit certain to evidence. by majority. majority The sets forth a sought to introduce into evidence However, part substantial of rule 127. I transcripts number of of para- think the last sentence of the third The trial tape court allowed one to be graph that rule is determinative of the of played jury. contends problem pro- sentence us. That before admitting not erred in a tran vides: script tape. of that Defendant contends tape 134(a)(4) transcript apply not accurate. The of R.C.P. jury tape. has heard We find no to incurred in the award admitting error in not the transcript. relation to the motion. 134(a)(4) not satisfied Here Civil Procedure Rule of

Iowa course, by a vio- the defendant. must, when the answers submitted considered asking Procedure 127 then filed a motion Rule of Civil lation of Iowa rule, effect, permits in trial court to declare defendant admit- occurs. expenses, including in the awarding of the matters contained ted fees, party. aggrieved to attorney's were not denied. mo- was attended to the trial court and tion Pro- Rule of Civil The reference subsequently The trial overruled. 134(a)(4) an addi- plays in rule 127 cedure essentially requests for found that the ad- provides it is the section that tional role for stood missions denied. par- aggrieved sanctions and remedies in I that nowhere rule ties. hasten add have often that the trial We said courts provision a verdict will there a is ruling have considerable discretion on suggested aside as be set not mean discovery matters. This does comply with its fails to because appel- say there are instances when provisions. found an late courts this state have plaintiffs of that abuse discretion. remedy is consist- I believe the sanction remedy on is whether the trial court writings place that have taken ent with overruling its abused discretion interpreting Federal Rule of Civil when asking motion court to plaintiffs rule improper discussing Procedure When I his should stand admitted. find failure denials or Federal I no abuse of Thus would af- discretion. (a quite rule Rule of Civil Procedure 36 firm. ours), following statement similar *6 in West Practice Manual

appears Federal

Rev.2d Ed. Vol 7691-10000 at 8460: § §§ only penalty improper denial or a

failure that which should have 37(c). admitted is out in rule set party requesting instance “if the

such proves gen-

the admissions thereafter uineness of the documents or the truth BANK, GRAFTON, FARMERS STATE matter, may he apply Iowa, Appellee, requiring pay order v. incurred him the reasonable making proof, including HUEBNER, Appellant. Glen attorney’s fees.” No. 90-202. Thus, 127, our the re- rule when Appeals Court of of Iowa. filed, quests must to whom is directed serve June upon requesting the admission a objection answer or addressed written matter. The must answer

deny the matter or set in detail forth why the answering party

reasons cannot

quickly deny admit or If the matter.

party requesting the admission is dissat-

isfied, may move he to determine the suffi-

ciency objections. If answers

court determines that an answer does not

comply rule requirements order either the matter stands or that

admitted an amended answer be

served.