Opinion ID: 1938906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegation of Inadequate Findings in Deputy's Order Overruling Claimant's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery.

Text: Claimant propounded an interrogatory, which was answered by David Lewis, an officer of defendant employer, in relevant part, as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. I : Identify by date and description each report, statement, transcription or photograph known to exist concerning this claim, giving the present locations, custodians and distinguishing subject matter of each. ANSWER : . . . David Lewis, Secretary-Treasurer of Big Ben Coal Company, gave statement on June 9, 1977 regarding the claimant's claim and statement is in possession of Defendant's attorneys, which statement is claimed to be privileged. Subsequently, claimant filed a motion for an order compelling discovery, pursuant to Iowa R.Civ.P. 134(a), 126(a), on the grounds that [d]efendant has unlawfully failed and objected to answering without substantial justification. . . . In response, defendants filed a resistance to the motion, which stated in four numbered paragraphs reasons, with cited authority, why claimant's motion should be denied. The deputy to whom the motion was submitted ruled in favor of defendants. His ruling set forth the above quoted interrogatory and answer, summarized the grounds stated in claimant's motion and then disclosed that his decision was [b]ased on the points cited in paragraphs numbered 2 and 3 in defendant's resistance. Claimant challenges the adequacy of the deputy's ruling on the basis of three Code provisions. The first two, §§ 17A.15 (2), .16(1), The Code, refer to the specificity required of proposed or final decisions of an agency, not that of its rulings on motions. The third, Iowa R.Civ.P. 118, see also 500 I.A.C. § 4.35, also fails to assist claimant's argument. That rule provides: A motion, or other matter involving separate grounds or parts, shall be disposed of by separate ruling on each and not sustained generally. There are two reasons why claimant is entitled to no remedy under this rule. First, claimant stated no varied specific grounds for his motion upon which the deputy could have separately relied. Secondly, the motion was overruled, and the rule applies only to motions that are sustained. Lewis v. State, 256 N.W.2d 181, 196 (Iowa 1977). In any event, we have previously held that even a failure to comply with the rule is nonprejudicial and thus nonreversible error if the basis for the ruling is clear. See, e. g., Giltner v. Stark, 252 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1977); Dobson v. Jewell, 189 N.W.2d 547, 554-55 (Iowa 1971).