GIBSON v. GIBSON, 2026 S.D. 43

Michael Gibson sued relatives and related entities over a GFLP land transaction and alleged undue influence, de facto control, and fiduciary breaches. 1
Michael’s counsel used Rule 45 subpoenas to seek Delores Gibson’s personal financial and medical records, despite repeated noncompliance problems with the rule. 2
After Prairie Lakes produced Delores’s medical records while a motion to quash was pending, Michael used some of those records to amend his complaint. 3
GFLP, joined by Greg, Joan, and Ronayne, moved to dismiss Michael’s case as a discovery sanction, and the circuit court dismissed the action and denied reconsideration. 4
The circuit court found Sortland had blatantly and in bad faith disregarded Rule 45 and had shown no remorse, making dismissal necessary to prevent further abuse. 5
Michael appealed, challenging whether the Rule 45 violation supported Rule 41(b) dismissal and whether dismissal was an abuse of discretion. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Sortland’s conduct violate Chapter 15-6 for Rule 41(b)? 7	Michael claimed Rule 45 allowed compliance before the court ruled on the motion to quash.	GFLP argued Rule 45 was violated by ignoring notice, objection, and subpoena procedures.	Yes; the conduct violated Rule 45 and thus Chapter 15-6. 8
Was dismissal a proper Rule 41(b) sanction? 9	Michael argued dismissal was too harsh and other sanctions should have been used.	GFLP argued the repeated, bad-faith misuse of subpoenas justified dismissal.	No abuse of discretion; dismissal was within permissible choices. 10
Did the circuit court need to rule on the motion to quash before subpoena compliance? 11	Michael said Rule 45 required a ruling before the production deadline.	GFLP said the rule only required prompt objection and did not authorize ignoring the motion.	No; Rule 45 does not require a pre-deadline ruling. 12
Were lesser sanctions required before dismissal? 13	Michael argued lesser sanctions, not dismissal, should have been considered.	GFLP said dismissal was warranted by the severity and persistence of the misconduct.	The court should have considered alternatives, but dismissal was still justified here. 14

Gibson v. Gibson Family Ltd. Partnership, 877 N.W.2d 597 (S.D. 2016) (prior family partnership litigation involving Michael Gibson 15)
Bison Tp. v. Perkins Cnty., 640 N.W.2d 503 (S.D. 2002) (failure to satisfy appeal bond requirements does not defeat jurisdiction 16)
Picardi v. Zimmiond, 693 N.W.2d 656 (S.D. 2005) (cost order must be directly appealed if entered after judgment 17)
Arrowsmith v. Odle, 30 N.W.3d 15 (S.D. 2025) (Rule 41(b) is a sanction for delay or disobedience and dismissal should be proportional 18)
Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 41(b) sanction must be proportionate to the transgression 19)
Olson v. Huron Reg’l Med. Ctr. Inc., 24 N.W.3d 405 (S.D. 2025) (five factors for considering dismissal for failure to prosecute 20)
Repp v. Van Someren, 866 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (findings must be specific enough for meaningful appellate review 21)
Coleman-Hill v. Governor Mifflin Sch. Dist., 271 F.R.D. 549 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (misuse of subpoena power harms court integrity as well as parties 22)