Krueger v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 921 N.W.2d 689

The Kruegers were injured in a 2015 rear-end collision; they settled the tortfeasor’s $50,000 policy and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from their insurer, Grinnell.
Counsel notified Grinnell of a UIM claim in March–July 2017; a separate UIM file was opened and authorization given to transfer med-pay records in August 2017; a complaint against Grinnell was filed the same day.
The complaint alleged breach of contract and factual assertions amounting to a bad-faith theory (e.g., refusal to pay without proper investigation) and requested attorney fees.
The Kruegers served written discovery; Grinnell responded after an extension but objected to many requests as overbroad and privileged, contending some were only relevant if bad faith was pleaded.
The Kruegers sent a single letter demanding answers within a week and filed a motion to compel when Grinnell did not comply; the circuit court granted the motion in full and awarded $2,200 in attorney fees.
The South Dakota Supreme Court granted discretionary review, and reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion because the movant did not satisfy Rule 37’s (SDCL 15-6-37) good-faith meet-and-confer requirement and the record showed a genuine discovery dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint’s allegations sufficiently put Grinnell on notice of a bad-faith claim for purposes of discovery scope	Kruegers: Complaint alleged refusal to pay without proper investigation and thus gave notice of bad faith	Grinnell: Discovery requests for bad-faith materials were premature unless bad-faith was properly pleaded; scope disputed	Court assumed without deciding that bad-faith was adequately alleged and did not decide this issue further
Whether a single demand letter satisfied SDCL 15-6-37(a)(2)’s meet-and-confer requirement and whether fees/sanctions were proper	Kruegers: One letter plus the court’s finding of intentional refusal by Grinnell meant further conferral would be futile; thus requirement satisfied	Grinnell: One letter was insufficient; parties had a bona fide dispute over scope and the Kruegers failed to meaningfully confer	Held: One letter did not satisfy the rule. The motion to compel and fee award were an abuse of discretion because the movant failed to certify adequate, good-faith efforts to confer; Grinnell’s objections were substantially justified in light of a genuine dispute

Pearson v. O’Neal-Letcher, 738 N.W.2d 914 (S.D. 2007) (standard of review for discovery sanctions)
Thurman v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 836 N.W.2d 611 (S.D. 2013) (abuse of discretion explained)
Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 456 (D. Kan. 1999) (meet-and-confer requires genuine two-way efforts to resolve discovery disputes)
Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nev. 1996) (personal, two-way communication required under Rule 37)
Williams v. Board of County Commissioners of Unified Government of Wyandotte County, 192 F.R.D. 698 (D. Kan. 2000) (a single letter is insufficient to satisfy meet-and-confer)
In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 351 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (futility of conferral must be shown by record facts)
Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung, 321 F.R.D. 250 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (objections substantially justified when reasonable minds can differ on discovery scope)