Opinion ID: 1785060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena.

Text: Because this matter must be remanded for trial on Baker's § 1983 claim, we will address his challenge to the district court's quashing of the subpoena seeking the records of assistant city attorney Dulek. The district court ruled the information sought from Ms. Dulek is protected by the attorney/client privilege. Baker contends the attorney-client privilege should not shield the assistant city attorney's file from discovery because the city attorney's office participates administratively in a human rights contested case. Pursuant to Iowa City City Code section 2-4-2, the city attorney receives an investigative summary and recommendation from the commission investigator and must then issue a written opinion to the Commission on whether probable cause exists to believe a discriminatory practice occurred as alleged by the complainant. Iowa City City Code § 2-4-2(F), (G). Other than a conclusory statement that such opinions and information by the city attorney's office should not be deemed privileged, Baker advances no argument in his brief and cites no authority to support a conclusion that the city attorney's opinion is not attorney work product or that these communications are not protected by the attorney-client privilege as found by the district court. In order to address this issue under these circumstances, we would be obliged to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant's research and advocacy. Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (dismissing an appeal based on appellant's failure to cite any authority); accord Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (stating we will not speculate on the arguments [the defendant] might have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments); McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 1980) (noting party failed to give supportive authority for general allegations of error and concluding party's argument is so indefinite as to preclude our consideration). We decline to do so. Consequently, we deem the plaintiff's challenge to the district court's ruling waived. See City of Marquette v. Gaede, 672 N.W.2d 829, 835 (Iowa 2003) (holding party's failure to cite any authority resulted in waiver of issue); Iowa R.App. P. 6.14(1)(c) (stating [f]ailure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue).