Court Opinion

ID: 9779146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:38:16.30977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:22.266322
License: Public Domain

HOYT, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The operative question in the majority’s opinion bearing on the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion is “Whether the trial court acted without reference to any ‘guiding rules and principles’.” Downer v. Aquamarine Operations, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-242 (Tex.1985).
The first and foremost purpose of sanctions is to effectuate the discovery process. I view dismissal of a lawsuit with prejudice as indicating (1) that hope for fulfilling the discovery process is gone; or (2) that the noncomplying party has, on numerous occasions expressed, and continues to express contempt for the court’s orders and the discovery process; or (3) that the noncomplying party expressed no reasonable or justifiable basis for the numerous instances of noncompliance.
I fail to see this type conduct expressed or displayed by the appellant in this case. Although a total of three motions for sanctions were filed, including the motion upon which the trial court dismissed the case, except for the motion upon which the case was dismissed, the appellant was sanctioned only once. This is a far cry from numerous. The fact that several defendants each filed separate motions does not multiply infractions or entitle one defendant to a dismissal of the plaintiff’s case simply because another defendant may be entitled. In my opinion, each defendant is defending a separate lawsuit which suit requires its own unique evidence for dismissal or judgment.
I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice because the evidence shows that the appellant complied with each order of the court and because costs of court and *534attorney’s fees were tendered in response to the motion at which the case was dismissed. The case should be reversed and the cause remanded for trial.