of discretion standard. Zens v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pac. R.R. Co., 479 N.W.2d 155, 159 (S.D.1991) (citations omitted). See State v. Christopherson, 482 N.W.2d 298, 300 (S.D.1992). Similarly, we have held that under the rules of criminal procedure, “the extent of discovery permitted by either side rests in the discretion of the court.” State v. Catch The Bear, 352 N.W.2d 640, 644 (S.D.1984) (citations omitted). As noted by the majority, a trial court’s orders regarding discovery are reviewed by applying the abuse of discretion standard. See Aberle v. Ringhausen, 494 N.W.2d 179, 182-83 (S.D.1992) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to review of trial court’s orders regarding discovery); William Ins. of Pierre v. Bear Butte Farms Ptrshp., 392 N.W.2d 831, 833 (S.D.1986) (<HOLDING>). See also Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Center, 117
holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that unless discovery is granted as a matter of statute court rule or the constitution discovery is within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery