Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in South Dakota

What Is a Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery?

“A trial judge has authority to compel discovery and to impose sanctions under SDCL 15-6-37. However, the rule [SDCL 15-6-37(b)] is designed to compel production of evidence and to promote, rather than stifle, the truth finding process.” (Magbuhat v. Kovarik, 382 N.W.2d 43, 45 [S.D. 1986] citing Chittenden Eastman Co. v. Smith,286 N.W.2d 314, 316 [S.D. 1979].)

“[A] court retains its broad discretion to grant or deny discovery sanctions. [...] But that decision is not unlimited given the text of SDCL 15-6-37(a)(2).” (Krueger v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 921 N.W.2d 689, 697 [S.D. 2018][internal citations omitted].)

Sanctions for Non-compliance with Discovery Orders

One example of the appleication of discovery sanctions by a court is as follows: “[u]nder SDCL 15-6-33(a), a party is required to answer interrogatories within 30 days of service. Failing to answer interrogatories may be the basis for dismissal.” (Storm v. Durr, 657 N.W.2d 34, 38 [S.D. 2003][internal citations omitted].)

“Furthermore, SDCL 15-6-37(b)(2)(C) allows a trial court to dismiss an action for plaintiffs' failure to obey a court order. The trial court has broad discretion in imposing sanctions for failure to comply with orders for discovery.” (Storm v. Durr, 657 N.W.2d 34, 38 [S.D. 2003] citing Chittenden Eastman Co. v. Smith, 286 N.W.2d 314, 316 [S.D. 1979].)

“However, when the trial court imposes dismissal as a sanction, its discretion is ‘narrow, and the losing party's noncompliance with discovery must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith.’” (Storm v. Durr, 657 N.W.2d 34, 38 [S.D. 2003][internal citations omitted].)

Standard of Review of Discovery Sanctions Including Dismissal

“We review a dismissal on the basis of failure to comply with discovery orders under an abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion is ‘a choice outside the range of permissible choices[.]’” (Coloni v. Coloni, 903 N.W.2d 745, 747-48 [S.D. 2017][internal citations omitted].)

Recent Case Law Concerning Costs and Sanctions

SDCL 15–6–37(a)(4)(A) authorizes the assessment of expenses and sanctions against a party failing to comply with an order to compel. The statute allows a circuit court to:

’...require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorneys' fees, unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant's first making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action, or that the opposing party's nondisclosure, response or objection was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.’ (Coloni v. Coloni, 903 N.W.2d 745, 748 [S.D. 2017] quoting SDCL 15–6–37(a)(4)(A).)

“The severity of the sanction must be tempered with consideration of the equities.” (Magbuhat v. Kovarik, 382 N.W.2d 43, 45 [S.D. 1986] citing Chittenden Eastman Co. v. Smith,286 N.W.2d 316=17 [S.D. 1979].) “Less drastic alternatives should be employed before sanctions are imposed which hinder a party's day in court and thus defeat the very objective of the litigation, namely to seek the truth from those who have knowledge of the facts.” (Id. at 316.)

Dockets for Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in South Dakota

Sort By

IDAHO HOUSING AND FINANCE ASSOCIATION vs. JUAN F LIMON, LOLITA L MARTINEZ ALVAREZ, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING THROUGH THE RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

Filed

May 23, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Turner County

County

Turner County, SD

Case #