i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 68 4- CV P ALISADES COLLE CTION, LLC as Assig nee of Providian Ba

nk, Appellant
v. Tomika T. COLEMAN , Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 5, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court No. 317727 Honora ble David Rodrig uez, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 9, 2009 AFF I RMED Th e so le iss ue pr e se nte d in thi s a pp e a l is wh e the r t

he tr ial co ur

t a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in g ranting death pe nalty

sanctions aga inst Palisades C ollection, L L C. Although Palisade s conce des that sa nc tio ns we re wa

rr ante d, Pa lis a de s a sse rt s the sa nc tio ns imp os e d we re e xce ssi ve and sh ou ld have be e n ass e sse d excl us ive ly a g a ins t Pali sa de s’ s att or ne y . We af

fi rm the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04
- 08
- 00 68 4- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND On September

7, 2006, Palisades sued Tomika T. C o l em an al leg ing that she failed to pa y $1,451.18 in cre dit card de bt. On J anuar y 30, 2 0 0 7 , Coleman faxed Palisades re quests for disclosure. The same day , Coleman faxed Palisades a reque st for dates to take the de position of the ind ivi du a l w ithPa lis a de s mo st k no wl e dg e a

ble of the ba sis fo r t

he su it. On F e b r u ar y 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , Co le ma

n f a xe d Pa li s a d e s in te r

r o g a to r ie s . O n F e b r

u ar y 20, 2007, Col e man f

a xed Pa lis a de s a

se c on d r e qu e st f

or date s to take the de po sit ion of th e in divid

ua l w ith Palisades most knowledg eable of the matter
. On Marc h 5 , 2 00 7, Co lem an fi le d a c ounte rc la im a sse rt ingPa lis a de s’ s c la im w a s w ho lly frivolous and a lleg ing violations of the F eder al Fa ir Debt Col lection P rac tices Act, Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices A ct, and Te x as De ceptive T rade Practice s Act. On March 6, 2007, P alisades
no n- su ite d it s c la im. On Marc h 26, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades a le tter, not ing Palisade s’s response s to the interrog atories wer e due on Marc h 21, 2007, but no response s had bee n rec eived. The letter a sked Pa lis a de s f

o r i t s s t a tu s o n t h e r e s p o n s e s . O n A p r i l 4 , 2 0 0 7 , C o l e m an f a xe d P a l i s a d e s a l e t t e r i n response to a voicema il. The letter acknow ledg ed that Palisades had non-suited its claim but stated that Co le man’ s c ounte rc la im r e ma ine d p e nd ing . T he le tte r furt he r state d tha t if Pali sa de s f a ile d to
re sp on d to the int e rr og a tor ie s w ith in s e ve n d ay s, Col e man w ou ld be for ced to fi le a mot ion to
c omp e l. On April 12, 2007, P alisades f iled a motion to reinstate its claim. On April 17, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades a le tter with a propose d disc o v ery control plan. The letter c ontained a t h i rd re qu es t fo r d at es t o t ak e t h e d ep o s i t i o no f t h e p er s o nfr o m P al i s ad es wi t h th e m o s tkn o wl ed ge04
- 08
- 00 68 4- CV

- 3- re g ard ingthe ma tte r. On May 10 , 2 00 7, the tr ia l c ourt

de nie d Pa lis a de s’s mo ti on to r e ins ta te its
c la im. On May

14, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades a letter requesting dates to take the de position of Mar ie Oliphant. The le tter noted that the deposition dates were previously reque sted, but no response was re ceive d. The letter stated that if no response w as re ceive d, Coleman would notice the deposition. On J uly

20, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades a letter noti ng Palisades failed to respond to the reque st for date s and noticing Oliphant’s deposition. On Aug ust 2, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades additional d i s co very , including r equests for pr od uc tio n, re qu e sts fo r a dmi ssi on , an d inte rr og a tor ie s. Th e same da y , Co le man f

a xed Pa lis a de s a mot ion to c omp e l r e sp on se s to pr ior dis c ov e ry

re qu e sts
. On Au g us t 9, 20 07 , th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d Co le man’ s mot ion to c omp e l dis c ov e ry re sp on se s. P a l i s a d e s w a s o r d e r e d t o p r o v i d e f u l l an d c o mp l e t e r e s p o n s e s t o c e rt a i nd i s c o v e r y w i t h i nt e nd a ys fro m t h e d at e o f t he trial c ourt’s orde r. On August 20, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades a letter reminding Palisades of the t rial court’s order and requesting the di scover y response s. On Aug ust 27, 2007, Oliphant failed to a ppear for the sc heduled de position. On Au g us t 29 , 2 00 7, Col e man f ile d a mot ion fo r s anc tio ns bas ed on

Pa lis a de s’ s f

a ilure to comply with the trial court’ s discovery order
. On September 12, 2007, Coleman filed a motion for partial summary

judgme nt seeking to establish Palisades’s li ability on Coleman’s cla ims based on Palisades’s dee med admissions. On S ep t em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t ri al co u rt gra n t edC o l em an ’s m o t i o nfo r s an ct i o n s . Al t h o u gh Col e man p ro po se d a

n o rd e r t hat w ou ld p re ve nt P a lis a de s fr om d e fe nd inga g a ins t Co le man’ s c la ims , the trial court struc k throug h that lang uag e of the proposed or der, a nd only require d Palisades to pay04
- 08
- 00 68 4- CV

1 ... In i t s b ri ef

, P al i sades c o nt end s t he t ri al c o urt imp o sed t he sanct i o ns wi t ho ut holdi ng a heari ng and m aki ng a r ecor d. T he t r i al cour t ’ s order , howev er , re cit es t ha t a h ear i ng was he l d. T he appel l at e r ecor d do es not r ef l ect t hat P a lisad e s re q u e ste d a re c o rd o f the h e a rin g . See T EX . G OV ’ T C O D E A NN . § 5 2
. 0 2 4 6 (a) (V ernon 2 0 0 5 ) ( requir i ng co urt repo rt er t o t ake reco rd o n request ).

- 4- $1 ,0 00 .0 0 a s sa

nc tions by

Se pte mbe r 2 8, 20 07 . T he tr ia l c ourt a lso g ra nte d Co le man’ s mo tio n to compel discove ry

response s and order ed Palisades to pay $300.00 in attorney ’s fe es by September 28, 2007. On Octobe r 3, 2007, Coleman faxed Palisades a letter reminding Palis ades that the trial court order ed it to respond to the di scover y reque sts and pay

$1,300.00 in sanctions. On Octobe r 5, 2007, Coleman filed anothe r motion for sanctions, asser ting Palis ades had not responde d to the discovery or paid the sa

nctions. On October 8, 2007, Palisades’s attorney sent Coleman’s attorne y

two chec ks i nt h e a m o u n t s o f

$ 1 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 , an d

$ 3 0 0
. 0 0 , r e s p e c t i v e l y. On Octobe r 12, 2007, the trial c ourt signe d an orde r gr an t ing Colema n’s motion for
sanc tio ns . 1 The order contained t he sanctions previously proposed by

Coleman for the September 14 , 2 00 7 o rd e r, pr e ve nti ngPa lis a de s f ro m de fe nd inga g a ins t Co le man’ s c la ims . The tr ia l c ourt a lso sig ne d a n o rd e r g ra

nti ngCol e man’ s mo tio n f or pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt. The c ause w as set for

trial on Novembe r 5, 2007. On Nove mber 5, 2007, the trial cour t signe d an ag ree d order

g ranting a continuanc e and r esetting the ca use for trial on Marc h 31, 2008. On Marc h 18, 2008, a hear ing was he ld on Palisades’s motion for continuanc e. Palisades’ s
a tto rn e y re qu e ste d th e c on tin

ua nc e be caus e he was se t f or ano the r t ri a l in a c a se inv olv ingc hil d protec tive service s. I n addition, Palisades’s attorne y wanted additional time to have the sa nctions
re c on sid e re d. Th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d th e mot ion

fo r co nti nu anc e and re se t the c a us e fo r tr ia l on Apr il 28, 2008.04
- 08
- 00 68 4- CV

- 5- On April 27, 2008, Palisades filed a motion to s et aside the sanctions. On Apr il 28, 2008, the trial cour

t held a hea

ring and denie d the motion.

D I S CUS S I ON “[W ]hether an imposition of sanctions is just i s measure d by tw o s tandar ds.” TransAmerican Natural Ga s Cor

p. v . P owe ll , 8 11 S.W. 2d 91 3, 91 7 ( Te x. 19 91 ). “ F ir st, a dir e c t r e la tio ns hip mus t exis t betwee n the offensive conduc t and the sanc tion impos ed.” Id
. “ Se c on d, jus t sa nc tio ns mus t not be excessive.” Id
. A. Di re c t Re la tio ns hip “A just sanction must be direc ted ag ainst the abuse a nd toward r em ed y i n g t h e prejudice
cause d to the innocent par ty , and the sa

nction should be visited upon the offender.” Spohn Hosp. v. May er , 104 S.W .3d 878, 882 (Tex. 2003). “The trial court must attempt to determine w hether the offe nsive conduc t is attributable to counsel only , to the party only , or to both.” Id Chris Carnohan wa s the attorney repr esenting Palisades when the l awsuit was filed and whe n the sanc tions were imposed. Car nohan testified that Palisades s ent i ts acc ounts to Parag on Way for
se rv ic ing . Ca

rn oh an s ta te d th a t Para g on Way re pr e se nte d Pali sa de s, and the ma tte r w a s “ se t up ” to be “ha ndled and c onducted throug h Parag on Way .” I n response to whether Palisades told Carnohan that “it was oka

y to ta lk to Parag on Way about this matter on their [Palisades’s] behalf,” Ca rnohan stated, “That was the wa

y it was all set up, y es.” Although Ca

rnohan te stified that employ ees in his offic e we re r esponsible for not r e sponding to t he dis c ov e ry , Ca

rn oh an a lso te sti fi e d th a t he fo rw ard e d th e mot ion to c omp e l and

or de rs to T ri sh Bax ter, Para g on Way ’s in-hou s e counse l, and she did not respond. Car nohan stated, “ We didn’t have a ny communication from he r. ” Although Carnoha n’s offic e wa s able to speak with “other04
- 08
- 00 68 4- CV

- 6- litigation folks at Para g on Way ,” they did not want to take on “th e burden of re sponding” or “instructing us in what to do.” Carnoha n stated, “So it a ll star

ted hinging on Trish Bax ter then. A nd

– an d w e n e v e r w e r e a b le to – to c o mm u n ic a te w it

h h e r . We ju s t ba s ic a ll y h a d to d is c o n n e c t. We couldn’t re ach he r and – a nd we c ouldn’t obtain any response from her .” Carnohan te stified that Marie O liphant is an employ ee w ho signs aff idavits for Palisades a

nd who swore to Co l em an ’s i n debtedne ss. When Carnohan wa s asked f or a r eason O liphant did not appea r for her de position, he stated, “I ’m trying to r emember if there was a
– a co n fl i ct o n her schedule that preve nted her appea ranc e at that time.” Ca

rnohan a dmitted that the monetary sancti ons ha d b e e n p a id f

ro m Pa lis a de s’ s tr

us t a c c ount, a

nd he tol d th e c lie nt a

bo ut t he sa nc tio ns . Ba sed on the e vidence prese nted, t he trial court could have deter mined that Palisades elec ted to deleg ate the ha

ndling of the leg al matters involving Coleman’s ac count to Parag on Way . The trial
c ourt c ou ld f ur the r h a ve de te rm ine d tha t th e fa ilure by Para g on Way ’s in- ho us e c ouns e l to communicate w ith Carnohan contr ibuted to the failure to r espond to the discovery . Acc ording ly , the trial court did not er

r in deter mining that the of

fensive co n d uct was attributable to both Carnohan
and Pa lis a de s. B. J ust Sanctions “[A] s anction imposed for discovery abuse should be no mor e seve re th a n n e c essar y to satisfy its legitimate purpose s, which include se curingcompliance with discovery rules, d et err ing othe r litigants fr om simi l ar m i s co n d u ct, and punishing violators.” Spohn Hosp. , 104 S.W .3d at 882. Court s mu st co ns ide r l e ss s tr ing e nt s anc tio ns in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r l e sse r s anc tio ns wo uld fu lly promote complianc e. Id
.04
- 08
- 00 68 4- CV

- 7- Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that th e tr ia l c ourt e xha us te d le ss s tr ing e nt san cti on s with ou t su c c e ss. “Two ord er s to compel discover y prec eded the ultimate sanction and we re not e noug h to produce compliance .” Par

a d ig m O il , I n c. v. R etamco O

perating, Inc. , 161 S.W .3d 531, 539 (Tex. App.—San An ton io 2 00 4, pe t. d e nie d) . T he tr ia l court ’s imp os iti on of mon e tary sanc tio ns a lso fa ile d to pr omo te compliance , and Palisades c ontinued to eng ag e in discover y abuse by failing to respond to the discovery reque sts de spite being order ed to r espond by the trial court. The trial c ourt only imposed the s anctions t hat precluded P alisades from prese nting a defe nse af ter Palisades ig nored two pr ior court orde rs “in ca llous disreg ard f o r the re sponsibili ties of discover y under the rules.” TransAmerican Natural Gas Cor p. , 811 S.W .2d at 918. We h o l d , there fore , that the sanc tions imp os e d b y

the tr ia l c ourt

we re jus t. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d. Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice