Court Opinion

ID: 9697903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:36:45.613393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:36.865145
License: Public Domain

LARSON, Justice.
In an action for damages for personal injury as a result of an automobile accident, subsequent to plaintiffs’ petition and defendant’s appearance but prior to his answer, plaintiffs made application for the *703production of papers, i. e., statements prepared by defendant’s automobile adjustor and signed by plaintiffs while patients at a hospital. When this application was denied, plaintiffs sought and were improvidently granted permission to appeal to this court.
The only issue to be considered at this time is whether under rule 129, R.C.P., the plaintiffs were entitled to an order requiring defendant to produce copies of the statements taken. We hold they were not, and that at that stage of the proceedings the trial court’s ruling was correct.
I. Rule 129, Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
“(a) After issue is joined in any action, any party may file an application for the production or inspection of any books or papers, not privileged, which are in the control of any other party, which are material to a just determination of the cause, for the purpose of having them inspected or copied or photostated. The application shall state with reasonable particularity the papers or books which are called for, and state wherein they are material to a just determination of the cause, and state that they are under the control of the party from whom production is requested. The movant need not use such documents as evidence at the trial.
“(b) The court shall fix the time and place for hearing on the application, and prescribe the manner and form of giving notice to the party from whom production is asked, or to his attorney of record.”
Plaintiffs’ motion or application herein was filed on July 18, 1968, subsequent to their June 5th petition alleging a good cause of action in several counts. Defendant had entered his appearance on June 17 and filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike on June 21, which were ruled upon by the court on July 8. Apparently no notice was given defendant of this filing and no hearing had thereon, but on July 25 the court, by calendar entry, overruled plaintiffs’ application in its entirety, citing rule 141(a), R.C.P. This part of the rule provides:
“(a) The deponent shall not be required and the court shall not order a deponent or party to produce or submit for inspection any writing obtained or prepared by the adverse party, his attorney, surety, indemnitor or agent, in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial unless satisfied that the denial of production or inspection will result in an injustice or undue hardship; nor shall the deponent be required or the court order a deponent or party to produce or submit for inspection any part of a writing which reflects an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories, or, except as provided in rule 133, the conclusions of an expert. The deponent shall not be examined on nor shall the court order the production or inspection of any liability insurance policy or indemnity agreement unless such liability insurance policy or indemnity agreement would be admissible in evidence at the trial of the action.”
In their application for permission to appeal, plaintiffs relied heavily on this provision claiming they had shown a denial of production or inspection would result in an injustice or undue hardship, and that it clearly appeared there was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in this denial. In light of the view we take of this cause, we do not reach the merits of that dispute. However, since this issue may again confront the trial court by a timely application, we note that pursuant to a notice and hearing on an application made after the issue is joined, our rules of discovery are to be liberally interpreted (Jones v. Iowa State Highway Commission, Iowa, 157 N.W.2d 86, 87) that the trial court is vested with discretion to control, limit, and even prevent discovery when it will not promote the administration of justice in a particular case. Kaltenheuser v. Sesker, 255 Iowa 110, 115, 121 N.W.2d 672, 674; 23 Am.Jur. *7042d, Depositions and Discovery, § 149. This discretion, of course, is not unlimited. Jones v. Iowa State Highway Commission, supra. It is said to be a power to be utilized justly and impartially by the application of relevant, legal, and equitable principles to all known or readily available facts of a given issue or course, to the end that justice may be more nearly effectuated. See Cogley v. HyVee Food Stores, Inc., 257 Iowa 1381, 1386, 137 N.W.2d 310, 312.
II. From the record in this case it appears defendant’s answer was filed on July 29, 1968, eleven days after plaintiffs’ application to produce papers was filed, and four days after the court had denied that application. Thus, we are faced squarely with the question as to whether rule 129 must be complied with as a prerequisite to any application for the production or inspection of any books or papers. We hold it must be strictly complied with and that only after issue is joined can such an application be considered by the court. The rule means just what it says, and an application such as we have here which was filed before issue was joined must be rejected as premature. This is what the trial court did, and on that basis we must affirm its action.
Affirmed.
All Justices concur except BECKER, STUART and MASON, JJ., who concur specially.