UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

SHELLY GIPSON,

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 4:22-cv-0730-P

WEATHERFORD COLLEGE,

Defendant. 

OPINION & ORDER ON REMAND

“The notion that counsel should have put himself at risk to find a 

notary [during inclement weather] is simply wrong.” Gipson v. 

Weatherford College, 2023 WL 7314355, at 3 n.3 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2023).

This Court agrees. This Court would never knowingly put any counsel 

or party before it at risk for their safety to comply with one of its orders. 

But clairvoyance is not a power vested in the judiciary under Article III

of the Constitution, and a district court can only act on the information 

provided by the attorneys practicing before it. Now before the Court is a

matter that has taken up a significant amount of time and resources 

from this Court and the Fifth Circuit and could have been easily avoided 

if counsel for Defendant had simply provided the Court with more 

information. 

BACKGROUND 

The underlying litigation in the case was rife with contention and 

inflammatory rhetoric that is rarely seen in the Fort Worth Division of 

the Northern District of Texas.1 Indeed, although this case was only 

1 As the long-respected Fort Worth Judge Eldon B. Mahon recognized after 

three decades on this bench, “name-calling and personal attacks . . . do little 

to advance a party's position and only serve to cloud the real issues before the 

Court.” U.S. Fleet Servs. v. City of Fort Worth, 141 F. Supp. 2d 631, 633–34 

(N.D. Tex. 2001) (Mahon, J.). 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 88 Filed 12/11/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1012
2 

active for about seven months, there were no fewer than five separate 

discovery disputes between the parties during that time.2 ECF Nos. 32, 

33, 42, 47, 59. Defendant’s attorney, Mr. John Ross, was almost 

exclusively responsible for initiating these disputes. The Court ordered 

the disputes referred to a magistrate judge for determination or the 

parties to confer to try to resolve the matters without the intervention 

of the Court. On December 15, 2022—after their fourth discovery 

dispute—the Court was required to enter an order gently reminding

counsel of their obligations under Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce 

Savings & Loan Assoc., 121 F.R.D. 284, 293 (N.D. Tex. 1988) ("[Parties] 

should make reasonable efforts to conduct all discovery by agreement."). 

ECF No. 50. Despite this admonishment, a mere six weeks later, Mr. 

Ross filed another motion for protective order because the parties could 

not agree over basic deposition procedure. ECF No. 59.

Over 400 hundred years ago, Sir Francis Bacon admonished judges 

to be on guard to prevent lawyers engaging in “nimble and sinister tricks 

and shifts, whereby they pervert the plain and direct courses of courts, 

and bring justice into oblique lines and labyrinths.” Sir Francis Bacon,

Essay “Of Judicature,” in HANDBOOK FOR JUDGES 28 (Donald K. Carroll 

ed.). Bearing this admonition in mind, the Court issued its “Dondi 

Order” on January 31, 2023—central to Ross’s appeal—which required 

that counsel simply reread Dondi, the Texas Lawyer’s Creed, and the 

Texas Rules of Professional Responsibility, certifying via an affidavit 

that they had done so by February 3, 2023. ECF No. 63. No more than

one hour and fifteen minutes later, Mr. Ross filed a declaration that he 

had done so—despite the Court’s order requiring an affidavit. ECF No. 

65. The next day, the Court struck and unfiled Ross’s declaration as well 

as Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration for failure to comply with the Court’s 

2 At one point, the parties could not even agree on deposition locations and 

times for key defense witnesses, requiring the Court to order the parties to 

meet and confer in-person in its own jury room—twice. ECF Nos. 50, 69. The 

undersigned can attest that, in his thousands of cases as a state trial and 

appellate judge and federal judge, he cannot recall being required to order

counsel to meet and confer at the courthouse to discuss basic deposition 

decorum.

 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 88 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1013
3 

Order. ECF Nos. 64, 65. The Court then imposed a small financial 

sanction of $250.00 against both sides. ECF No. 66. Mr. Ross ultimately 

complied with the Court’s Order, paid the sanction, and filed the 

requisite affidavit on February 3. ECF No. 70. In a notice attached to 

the affidavit, Mr. Ross asserted for the first time that inclement weather 

prevented his securing a notary on January 31, even though the 

affidavit was not due until February 3. ECF No. 70. Mr. Ross did not ask 

the Court to reconsider the $250.00 sanction and the case was settled 

and dismissed on April 6, 2023. 

Only Mr. Ross appealed the Court’s bilateral sanction.3 

ANALYSIS

This Court understands and has long treated declarations equal to 

affidavits under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, consistent with the law and circuit 

precedent. But the importance of oaths—taken before those legally 

authorized to administer them—cannot be overstated, especially when 

it comes to ensuring compliance with codes of professional conduct. 

Indeed, “[oaths] contain[] a formal calling upon God; an affirmation is 

merely a statement that one will tell the truth.” 4 HANDBOOK OF FED.

EVID. § 603:1 n.1 (9th ed.). In forming his militia, George Washington 

instructed his officials to ensure that recruits took “oaths” of allegiance, 

which often carried punishments if one failed to comply with his or her 

oath. See Ian Gallacher, “Swear Not at All”: Time to Abandon the 

Testimonial Oath, 52 NEW ENGLAND L. REV. 247, 265–66 (2018).4 

3 Although the Court is perplexed by counsel’s reasoning or its relevancy, 

in his brief to the Fifth Circuit, Mr. Ross took the opportunity to provide the 

court of appeals with citations to every case in which he has appeared in the 

Texas federal courts over 35 years, and also attempted to slight this Court by 

informing the court of appeals that he was first “first licensed in Michigan in 

1976—the year after the District Court was born.” See Gipson, 2023 WL 

7314355, Appellant’s Br. at 15.

4 The importance of oath-taking has been acknowledged through our 

history, from the oath of the president enshrined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 

8 of the Constitution, to the oath of attorney to be admitted into the Northern 

District of Texas. See N.D. Tex. LR 83.2 & N. D. Tex. LCrR 57.7. Indeed, 

common law has long recognized that “testimony” in the context of a legal 

proceeding is fundamentally defined as “a statement made by a witness under 

oath.” Cauble v. Key, 256 S.W. 654, 655 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1923, no writ) 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 88 Filed 12/11/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1014
4 

It is this gravitas of oath-taking that has been enshrined in the 

American judiciary since its inception, where courts have routinely 

punished those found to have made false oaths in judicial proceedings 

and to law enforcement officials. See e.g., “Perjury,” Va. Prac. Criminal 

Offenses & Defenses P15. Therefore, for almost a decade, the 

undersigned has required affidavits and oaths of its appearing attorneys 

in numerous contexts, not the least of which have been Dondi orders—

the initial forms of which were crafted decades ago by the late Judge 

Eldon Mahon—aimed at ensuring a fair and expeditious judicial process 

and enforcing the (rightly) required standards of professional conduct 

by the members of its Bar. Similar Dondi-type orders requiring 

affidavits or oaths of compliance have been relied upon by state and 

federal judges in Tarrant County for decades.

The Court is left skeptical of the justification offered on appeal by 

Mr. Ross that treacherous weather required a declaration in this 

instance. Mr. Ross filed a non-compliant declaration a mere hour or so 

after the Court’s mandate even though he had nearly four more days to 

secure a notary and file an affidavit. What’s more, Mr. Ross ultimately 

complied with the terms of the Dondi Order by providing an affidavit 

after offering a perfectly legitimate reason for his failure to originally 

secure a notary—a reason for which the Court would have granted an 

extension or reconsideration—should he simply have requested it. 

Unfortunately, the cost of his appeal has now far outweighed the value 

of this Court’s original sanction: monetarily, and in terms of Mr. Ross’s 

time, this Court’s time, his client’s time, the time and effort of the Fifth 

Circuit’s panel assigned his appeal. The Court can ill-afford to spend any 

more time exploring Mr. Ross’s actions on remand.

The Court continues to believe in the solemnity of oaths taken before 

those authorized to administer and receive them, especially when it is 

used as a tool for this Court’s exercise of its “inherent authority to 

manage [its] own affairs to achieve the orderly and expeditious 

(citation omitted) (“[T]he administration of the oath by a competent officer is a 

fundamental and essential requirement to give testimony its binding force.”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 88 Filed 12/11/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1015
5 

disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).5

Thus, to avoid any misunderstanding of its orders in the future, the 

Court will require counsel to physically appear before the Court and 

swear that they have complied with its Dondi orders. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, as required by the instructions of the Fifth Circuit, the 

Order dated February 2, 2023 imposing sanctions on Mr. John Ross is 

VACATED. In light of the Fifth Circuit’s Order and in fairness, the 

Court will also VACATE its February 2, 2023 Order imposing sanctions 

on counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. Kevin M. Duddlesten. The Clerk of the 

Court is INSTRUCTED to refund Mr. Ross his $250.00 sanction and 

Mr. Duddlesten his $250.00 sanction imposed by the Order. 

SO ORDERED on this 11th day of December 2023.

5“The judge sets the standards of practice in his court. He can countenance

a low standard of lawyer conduct generally or he can require a high standard

of lawyer conduct. . . . Unless the judge requires a high standard of all who 

practice before him, the best will be forced down to the level of the worst in

order to compete on equal terms.” Arch M. Cantrall, The Judge as a Leader: 

The Embodiment of the Ideal of Justice,” in HANDBOOK FOR JUDGES 59 (Donald 

K. Carroll ed.). 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 88 Filed 12/11/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1016