Opinion ID: 2032355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Estal.

Text: Estal's motion for summary judgment incorporated the statements of material facts and memoranda of authorities filed by the school district and the bank. Its motion stated that any statements by Estal are protected by a qualified privilege and were made without malice. In response to Estal's motion for summary judgment, Bitner filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and response to request for production of documents. The motion stated there are presently three motions for summary judgment pending with the court which include a motion for summary judgment from defendants Estal & Associates, P.C. and Donald D. Kain. Bitner stated that without their discovery response he could not properly resist their motion for summary judgment. Two days later Bitner filed a resistance to the motions for summary judgment filed by all defendants. His statement of undisputed material facts included a statement that Estal & Associates' letter to the board of education contained many untrue statements. He further stated if investigation had been made, such as comparison of handwriting and contact with him, the true facts would have been revealed and many discrepancies in the audit and falsities in the audit would not have occurred. Bitner stated [a]ll defendants in this case acted with malice toward plaintiff and with recklessness and disregard for the actual truth or veracity of the information contained in the investigation prior to the criminal charges brought against Dan Bitner. Although Estal filed a motion for summary judgment and Bitner filed a timely resistance to the motion, no court order was entered setting Estal's motion for summary judgment for hearing. Apparently all parties assumed the court would hear all three motions for summary judgment at the same time. Counsel for all parties were present at the summary judgment hearing and no objection was raised by Bitner or Estal to submission of the motions for summary judgment. Based on the undisputed facts, the court found statements made by Estal were entitled to an absolute privilege or qualified privilege and there were no facts which would show actual malice. Bitner argues the court abused its discretion by not granting his discovery motion before hearing and deciding the summary judgment motion. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the rule 179(b) motion. The court could conclude Bitner had ample opportunity to conduct discovery. Interrogatories and request for production had been answered or a response had been made by Estal. After a summary judgment motion has been filed, it is important under our current rule that a rule 237(f) affidavit be filed if additional discovery is required. If Bitner's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and response to request for production is in the nature of a motion to compel discovery under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 134, then Bitner has waived his objection by failing to file a rule 237(f) motion. If the motion filed by Bitner is a rule 237(f) motion, then it fails to satisfy the requirement that the motion be supported by affidavit. The court might well consider Bitner's motion, filed two days before hearing on the summary judgment and after a resistance had been served on Estal, as an attempted delay tactic. This possibly could have been dispelled had Bitner filed an adequate rule 237(f) affidavit. He did not do so. His failure precludes consideration of his challenge to the court's granting summary judgment to Estal. Based upon the record the defendants have established that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. AFFIRMED.