10.07.2015 Views

1E9Ct5D

1E9Ct5D

1E9Ct5D

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

IOWAMatthew D. JacobsonBernard L. (Jerry) SpaethJason M. CasiniWHITFIELD & EDDY, P.L.C.317 Sixth Ave. Suite 1200Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4195Phone: (515) 288-6041www.whitfieldlaw.comJacobson@whitfieldlaw.com1. Does your state recognize an exemption from discovery (or a privilege) forpre-suit investigation materials? Is there a key to preserving thisexemption/privilege (i.e. involvement of counsel)?Pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.503(3), trial-preparation materials areexempt from discovery, absent a showing by the party seeking the materials that it hasa substantial need of the materials for preparation of its case, and is unable withoutundue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.Under Iowa law, pre-suit investigation materials are included in this exemption when “inlight of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the[materials] can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospectof litigation.” Wells Dairy, Inc. v. American Industrial Refrigeration, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 38,48 (Iowa 2004). Conversely, “if [materials] would have been created in essentiallysimilar form irrespective of the litigation, it cannot fairly be said that they were created‘because of’ actual or impending litigation.” Id.2. What is your state’s rule with regard to the discoverability of written orrecorded statements taken during investigation of an incident?Under Iowa law, a statement made by a witness during the course of pre-suitinvestigation is afforded the same protection under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure1.503(3) as other pre-suit investigation materials, so long as the statement was taken inanticipation of litigation. Berg v. Des Moines General Hospital Co., 456 N.W.2d 173, 176(Iowa 1990). However, Iowa courts have recognized that there is no substantialequivalent to an eyewitness statement taken immediately after an event, and as suchhave found that a mere lapse will ordinarily be enough to show a substantial need toobtain the statement of an eyewitness taken shortly after the event in question. Id.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!