Veblen District v. Multi-Community Cooperative Dairy, 813 N.W.2d 161

Minority shareholders sue MCC Dairy and insiders as officers/directors; MCC Dairy board overhaul occurred in March 2001 under bylaws.
2002 SD Attorney General investigation concluded no criminal wrongdoing by defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a derivative complaint in 2007; amended direct complaint in early 2008 allowed under SDCL 15-6-15(a).
Case stayed in 2008 due to a separate receivership action; case resumed in March 2011 and a June 2011 hearing occurred.
Circuit court granted summary judgment on the amended complaint, and separately sanctioned Plaintiffs for discovery abuses, awarding attorney’s fees and costs.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed both the grant of summary judgment and the sanctions order, applying standard SDCL review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on the amended complaint	Plaintiffs contend disputed material facts exist.	Defendants argue no actionable conduct shown; facts insufficient for any claim.	Yes; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether sanctions for discovery abuse were improper	Plaintiffs challenge the sanctions as improper penalization.	Defendants claim sanctions were warranted due to failure to attend depositions and related conduct.	Yes; sanctions affirmed.

One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis, Denver, Colo., 752 N.W.2d 668 (S.D. 2008) (summary judgment and fact-review principles in SD)
Dykstra v. Page Holding Co., 766 N.W.2d 491 (S.D. 2009) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
Robinson v. Ewalt, 808 N.W.2d 123 (S.D. 2012) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 157 N.W.2d 19 (S.D. 1968) (summary judgment standard and burden allocation)
Schwartz v. Palachuk, 597 N.W.2d 442 (S.D. 1999) (trial court's discretionary authority on sanctions)
Chittenden & Eastman Co. v. Smith, 286 N.W.2d 314 (S.D. 1979) (flexibility of sanctions authority under discovery rules)