Tornow v. Sioux Falls Civil Service Board, 827 N.W.2d 852

Tornow was an Assistant City Attorney for Sioux Falls; he was terminated on August 27, 2010 for violating multiple subsections of Sioux Falls City Ordinance 30-46.
Tornow appealed to the City’s Civil Service Board; the Board scheduled hearings and notified Tornow, who objected to the proposed panel.
Tornow filed two writ actions: case 11-25 (prohibition regarding the panel) and 11-2481 (mandamus to compel discovery).
Judge Miller conducted the 11-2481 mandamus hearing and later ruled that requested personnel files were not relevant to Tornow’s termination appeal and denied discovery.
Tornow moved for a new trial after the March–April 2012 proceedings; the court entered formal findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 2, 2012.
This appeal challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction over 11-2481, the denial of the mandamus writ, and the denial of Tornow’s motion for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction over the mandamus writ.	Tornow contends the 11-2481 writ was assigned improperly and the judge lacked authority.	Miller was properly assigned by the Chief Justice to hear the writ despite procedural irregularities.	Judge Miller had jurisdiction; assignment by the Chief Justice was proper and binding.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mandamus writ.	Tornow argues a clear legal duty existed for the Board to act and to disclose records.	The Board’s discovery was discretionary and did not constitute a ministerial duty; no clear duty to act.	No abuse; there was no clear legal duty to disclose the personnel records.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Tornow's motion for a new trial.	The lack of formal findings on the mandamus order constitutes irregularity warranting a new trial.	Findings were timely entered; in-camera review and later formal findings complied with standards.	No abuse of discretion; the later findings were proper and supported the ruling.

Knapp v. Hamm & Phillips Serv. Co., 2012 S.D. 82 (S.D. 2012) (jurisdiction questions analyzed as questions of law)
Krsnak v. S.D. Dep’t of Env’t & Natural Res., 2012 S.D. 89 (S.D. 2012) (mandamus standard and abuse of discretion)
Grant Cnty. Concerned Citizens v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2011 S.D. 5 (S.D. 2011) (mandamus and discretion principles)
Atkinson v. City of Pierre, 2005 S.D. 114 (S.D. 2005) (mandamus and ministerial vs. discretionary duties)
Black Hills Cent. R.R. Co. v. City of Hill City, 2003 S.D. 152 (S.D. 2003) (standards for discretionary acts)
Surgical Inst. of S.D., P.C. v. Sorrell, 2012 S.D. 48 (S.D. 2012) (new-trial standard and discretion)
Sorrels v. Queen of Peace Hosp., 1998 S.D. 12 (S.D. 1998) (scope of discovery and evidentiary standards)
Kaarup v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 436 N.W.2d 17 (S.D. 1989) (relevance standard for discovery motions)
Onnen v. Sioux Falls Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 49–5, 2011 S.D. 45 (S.D. 2011) (new-trial and discretion considerations)
Woodruff v. Hand Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2007 S.D. 113 (S.D. 2007) (standard for reviewing discretionary rulings)