Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed August 27, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00835-CV

REDMOND LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, AND JERRY REDMOND, JR., 

Appellants 

V.

CARLISS CHATMAN AND MITRA WOODY, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-09477 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellants Redmond Legal Group, PLLC, and Jerry Redmond, Jr., bring this 

appeal from the trial court’s order of May 15, 2017, granting a motion for sanctions 

in favor of appellees Carliss Chatman and Mitra Woody and dismissing appellants’ 

claims with prejudice. We reverse and remand. 
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying suit began in February 2014 when Redmond Legal Group, 

PLLC, (“RLG”) and Jerry Redmond, Jr., (“Redmond”) filed their original petition 

against Carliss Chatman and Mitra Woody, former contract attorneys for RLG. 

Chatman and Woody counterclaimed. Eventually, the matter was set for trial during 

a two-week period beginning January 18, 2016. 

On January 5, 2016, counsel for Redmond filed a motion seeking a 

continuance or abatement of trial based on an e-mail from Redmond with a 

physician’s letter attached, which stated: “due to injury, Redmond is not able to 

travel from Georgia or appear at trial.” Redmond’s counsel attempted to contact her 

client but was unsuccessful. The letter, dated December 18, 2015, is signed “Dr. 

Debra Hyber” (hereinafter the “Hyber letter”). In the top right-hand corner is the 

following: 

Dr. Debra Hyber, DO 

Holcomb Medical 

476 Mansell Rd 

Roswell, Georgia 30076 

The Hyber letter states Redmond was injured in November 2015, 

necessitating “medical treatment and stay, and rehabilitative therapy . . ..” Further, 

the Hyber letter states Redmond continues to receive rehabilitative therapy “and is 

unable to travel until he is reevaluated and possibly released by me during his next 

visit in late January 2016.” In June 2016, Chatman and Woody moved for sanctions 

alleging the Hyber letter was fraudulent and was submitted to delay trial and give 

Redmond more time to respond to discovery. 

On December 20, 2016, a status conference was held. The hearing record 

reflects that appellants’ trial counsel informed the trial court that the Hyber letter 
3

was “false.” She stated the letter was not written by the doctor and there was no 

clinic at that address. According to counsel, “Everything about the letter is a falsity.” 

The trial court asked, “you are saying to me that this letter was presented to you by 

your client is a fraud?” To which trial counsel relied, “Yes.” The trial court expressed 

concern that a fraud upon the Court had been committed. The trial setting was 

cancelled, and an evidentiary hearing planned for January. The trial court stated it 

was “on the table” as to whether appellants’ pleading would be struck, and the case 

dismissed. The trial court said, “I will want to see evidence that Mr. Redmond was 

in the hospital at the time we are discussing here.” 

On January 3, 2017, a hearing was held on the motion for sanctions. On 

February 6, 2017, the trial court signed an order directing Redmond to provide his 

counsel with the name of the hospital(s) that treated him for the alleged injury he 

suffered in November 2015 no later than February 10, 2017. Further, Redmond’s 

counsel was ordered to then obtain records “from the identified hospital(s) in 

admissible form.” Those records were to be produced “for in camera review by 

March 10, 2017.” 

In May 2017, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions and 

dismissed all of appellants’ claims. In its order, the trial court made the following 

findings: 

The Court finds that the letter the Plaintiffs filed with this Court 

on January 5, 2016 (the “ Hyber Letter” ) is fraudulent. In response to 

the Defendants Motion for Sanctions, the Plaintiffs represented that the 

Hyber Letter was written by Dr. Redmond-Hyber, a pediatrician 

licensed in Alabama. The Court finds that Dr. Redmond-Hyber did not. 

write the Hyber Letter. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs knowingly 

submitted the fraudulent Hyber Letter to the Court to be considered in 

ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Hearing for Status 

Conference on the Trial Setting and Opposed Motion for Continuance 

or Abatement.
4

The Court also finds that the Hyber Letter and related claims of 

injuries suffered by Jerry Redmond were used to unnecessarily and 

unreasonably delay proceedings in this case, including mediation and 

the Plaintiffs’ responses to the Defendants’ discovery requests. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff Redmond’s sworn 

testimony regarding the Hyber Letter during the hearing held on 

January 3, 2017, was not truthful. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff Jerry Redmond Jr. failed to fully 

comply with the Court’s orders made from the bench on December 20, 

2016, and January 3, 2017. Plaintiff Redmond also failed to fully 

comply with this Court’s written order signed February 6, 2017. 

Plaintiff Jerry Redmond, Jr. is an attorney licensed by the State 

of Texas. Plaintiff Redmond is subject to the Texas Disciplinary Rules 

of Professional Conduct, including the rule of Candor Toward the 

Tribunal. 

Through their conduct, the Plaintiffs have abused or violated the 

discovery process, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Texas 

Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Based on this conduct, the 

Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ claims lack merit. 

In September 2017, appellees filed a notice of nonsuit of their counterclaims 

and the trial court signed an order dismissing those claims. Appellants timely filed 

their notice of appeal. 

APPLICABLE LAW

A sanction is just if there is a direct relationship between the offensive conduct 

and the sanction imposed and it is not excessive. TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. 

Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Under the first prong, 

a direct relationship exists if a trial court directs the sanction against the abuse found 

and the sanction remedies the prejudice caused to the innocent party. Id.

Under the second prong, just sanctions must not be excessive. Id. The 

discovery sanction imposed should be no more severe than necessary to serve its 

legitimate purposes. Id. A sanction is excessive if lesser sanctions would have served 
5

the purposes of compliance, deterrence, and punishment. 5 Star Diamond, LLC v. 

Singh, 369 S.W.3d 572, 579 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). Generally, before a 

sanction that prevents a decision on the merits is justified, the record must reflect 

that the court considered the availability of lesser sanctions. In all but the most 

egregious and exceptional cases, lesser sanctions must first be tested to determine 

their efficacy. Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W. 3d 835, 842 (Tex. 2004). 

Were the Sanctions Just? 

Appellants complain that there was no direct relationship between the 

offensive conduct and the sanction imposed. Further, appellants contend the sanction 

was excessive. See TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917.

When a party has fabricated evidence, death penalty sanctions may be 

appropriate. Poff v. Guzman, 532 S.W.3d 867, 870 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2017, no pet.). Additionally, courts will generally uphold the use of death 

penalty sanctions for abuse of the discovery process “if a party acts in flagrant bad 

faith, such as by destroying or fabricating evidence that is material to the case.” Khan 

v. Valliani, 439 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); 

see Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 836 (plaintiff violated court orders by deliberately 

destroying dispositive evidence). This is so because “[a]ctions that callously 

disregard the rules of discovery warrant a presumption that the actor’s claims are 

meritless.” Id. 

In Khan, this court recognized that the failure to pay $400 in attorney’s fees 

for contempt of court revealed nothing about the truth or merit of the plaintiff’s 

claims. 439 S.W.3d at 5353. We therefore determined the trial court should have 

considered lesser sanctions and held dismissal of the suit could not be upheld as a 

sanction. Id. at 536. “In all cases, the record must reflect that the trial court 
6

considered the availability of appropriate lesser sanctions and must contain an 

explanation of the appropriateness of the sanction imposed.” In re RH White Oak, 

LLC, 442 S.W.3d 492, 502 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (orig. 

proceeding) (citing Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 842). 

In Poff, a false affidavit of indigence was submitted in support of a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Poff, 532 S.W.3d at 870. This court determined the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction. Id. at 872. 

Then in Pressil v. Gibson, 558 S.W.3d 349, 354 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2018, no pet.), we upheld the trial court’s death-penalty sanction for manufacturing 

evidence related to damages. Accord Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 841 (party destroyed audio 

tapes which went to the heart of the proof needed to defend against that party’s 

claims); JNS Enter., Inc. v. Dixie Demolition, LLC, 430 S.W.3d 444, 455 (Tex. 

App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (parties produced false contract documents that were 

the basis of their claims); Response Time, Inc. v. Sterling Commerce (N. Am.), Inc., 

95 S.W.3d 656, 662 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.) (defendants’ conduct—

testifying falsely and misleadingly, fabricating claims, defenses and evidence, and

presenting false arguments and evidence—was directly related to its counterclaims 

and defenses); Daniel v. Kelley Oil Corp., 981 S.W.2d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (plaintiff fabricated tape recording which went 

to the heart of her case); Vaughn v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 792 S.W.2d 139, 143 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (plaintiff committed perjury and fabricated 

evidence in her deposition and discovery responses that were material to her suit)).

Although trial courts have broad authority to impose appropriate sanctions on 

litigants that abuse the litigation process, that authority is not without limits. See 

Altesse Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. Wilson, 540 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2018). The trial court 

clearly had the discretion to sanction Redmond because of the Hyber letter, including 
7

the potential use of death penalty sanctions. The order, however, does not state that 

lesser sanctions were considered, how the sanctionable conduct bore direct relevance 

to the claims of plaintiffs Redmond Legal Group, PLLC, and Jerry Redmond, Jr., or 

why fabricating and submitting the Hyber letter justified a presumption that the 

claims of plaintiffs Redmond Legal Group, PLLC, and Jerry Redmond, Jr., lacked 

merit. Also, the record does not reflect that the trial court considered the availability 

of lesser sanctions. For this limited reason, and under the record as it currently 

stands, we must conclude that the sanction was an abuse of discretion. See Cire, 134 

S.W.3d at 842; RH White Oak, 442 S.W.3d at 502. 

CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the cause for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

 

 /s/ Margaret “Meg” Poissant

 Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell and Poissant.