Opinion ID: 1862647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Substantial need and undue hardship.

Text: We next must consider whether the district court correctly concluded that Exotica made the proper showing concerning substantial need and undue hardship to entitle it to discovery of the Cowett documents under Iowa rule of civil procedure 122(c).
With respect to discovery requests, we have said: A motion to compel production of documents under rule 122 does not necessarily fail when a court decides the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The decision merely triggers the burden of showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. Ashmead, 336 N.W.2d at 201 (emphasis added) (quoting Iowa R. Civ. P. 122(c)). We have said that the party [Exotica] seeking discovery bears the burden to show that he or she has a substantial need of the materials in the preparation of [the] case and that [the party] [was] unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 888 (quoting Iowa R. Civ. P. 122(c)). This means that the party seeking discovery, at the very least, must make an independent discovery effort to obtain the same information. [The party] must show that [the party] has interviewed these witnesses or deposed them without success. Id. We have also said that the party must demonstrate that the information contained in the documents prepared . . . could not be obtained through a review of the . . . documents already produced . . ., the depositions of the persons responsible for making the denial decision or any other source. Squealer, 530 N.W.2d at 688.
In its ruling, the district court concluded that Exotica had shown a substantial need to discover the Cowett documents, but did not examine or address whether Exotica had shown that it was unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means as required by Iowa rule of civil procedure 122(c). Nor did the court comment on what efforts Exotica had made to obtain the Cowett documents from another source. See Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 888 (stating that party seeking discovery, at the very least, must make an independent discovery effort to obtain the same information). Upon our review and without unduly extending this opinion, we are not convinced that Exotica has made the proper showing under rule 122(c). We reverse the district court's decision on this issue. As to other issues raised on appeal, we conclude they either were not preserved or have no merit.