JAMES E. STORM and BARBARA STORM v. SAMUEL J. DURR, M.D., individually and /b/a THE HEART DOCTORS, CARDIOLOGYASSOCIATES, P.C.; et al 2003 SD 6
Annotate this CaseJAMES E. STORM and BARBARA
STORM, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
SAMUEL J. DURR, M.D., individually and
d/b/a THE HEART DOCTORS, CARDIOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, P.C.; KENNETH D. STAHL,
M.D., individually and d/b/a KENNETH
D. STAHL, M.D., P.C.; and STEVEN HATA,
M.D., individually and d/b/a BLACK HILLS
NEUROLOGY
Defendants and Appellees.
[2003 SD 6]
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of
The Seventh Judicial Circuit
Pennington County, South Dakota
Hon. Merton B. Tice, Jr., Judge
LEE C. “Kit” McCAHREN of
Olinger, Lovald, Robbennolt
and McCahren
Pierre, South Dakota
Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants.
GREGORY G. STROMMEN of
Costello, Porter, Hill,
Heisterkamp, Bushnell & Carpenter
Rapid City, South Dakota
Attorneys for defendants and appellees.
Considered on Briefs November 18, 2002
Opinion Filed 1/15/2003
#22362
SABERS, Justice
FACTSPlaintiffs have, prior to commencement of this action, secured the opinion of a licensed physician, Dr. Morton Willcutts, Jr., of Chamberlain, South Dakota, supporting their contentions of negligent acts or omissions by said defendants and each of them, as set forth above.
Durr filed his answer on September 25, 2000 and served interrogatories on Storm on October 16, 2000. The interrogatories requested that Storm identify the expert witness, the subject matter upon which he was expected to testify, the substance of his facts and opinions and the grounds for those opinions, and the resources he relied upon. Storm did not answer the interrogatories and Durr subsequently granted Storm an extension until December 15, 2000. Answers to the interrogatories were not received and on March 29, 2001, the trial court, Judge John Fitzgerald, sent a letter to the parties noting there had been no activity on the case for six months and requesting that they proceed.
[d]isclose all expert witnesses to be called at trial by July 13, 2001, and said disclosures shall contain all information required pursuant to SDCL 15-6-26(b)(4), including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Each person Plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at trial;
b. The subject matter upon which the expert witness is expected to testify;
c. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and
d. A summary of the grounds for each opinion.
Storm had not responded to the order as of July 12, 2001. On July 19, 2001, counsel for Storm requested additional time to respond to discovery and he was granted a six-week extension. Finally, on September 15, 2001, Storm served answers to the interrogatories. Despite the court’s explicit order, Storm’s answer merely provided: “Dr. Martin Willcutts, Chamberlain, South Dakota. As soon as a report is produced, it will be provided.”
[¶5.] Durr responded to Storm’s answer with a letter on September 18, 2001, requesting more complete answers to interrogatories, a deposition time within thirty days for Dr. Willcutts, and a copy of his report within two weeks. Storm replied with a note on September 25, 2001, indicating that Willcutts had not produced a report and stating, “when there is a scheduling order in effect and we are in a position to do so, we will supplement the answers to interrogatories.” Willcutts’ report was not turned over to Durr until December 20, 2001, the day before the hearing on Durr’s motion to dismiss. Dr. Willcutts was never deposed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶8.] We review a dismissal on the basis of failure to comply with discovery orders under an abuse of discretion standard. Van Zee v. Reding, 436 NW2d 844, 845 (SD 1989) (citations omitted). “The term 'abuse of discretion’ refers to 'a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.’” Hrachovec v. Kaarup, 516 NW2d 309, 311 (SD 1994) (quoting Herndon v. Herndon, 305 NW2d 917, 918 (SD 1981)).
* SDCL 15-6-12(b) provides in part:
If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (5) to dismiss for failure of the pleadings to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment . . . and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by § 15-6-56.
(emphasis supplied).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.