Court Opinion

ID: 9779442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:50:50.717707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.443504
License: Public Domain

ESQUIVEL, Justice,
concurring.
In my opinion, the issue raised by this appeal is not controlled by former Rule 215(5),1 contrary to the arguments of appellant and appellee. In my opinion the provisions of Rule 215(2)(b) control because the issue is “failure to comply” instead of “failure to supplement discovery.”
Rule 167(l)(d) provides:
The party upon whom the REQUEST is served shall serve a written RESPONSE which shall state, that inspection or other requested action will be permitted as requested, and he shall thereafter comply with the REQUEST, except only to the extent that he makes objections in writing to particular items, or categories of items, stating specific reasons why such discovery should not be allowed. (Emphasis added).
In this case, appellant served a request upon appellee for the production of certain income tax returns pursuant to Rule 167. Appellee’s response was to the effect that inspection would be permitted. Appellee did not produce the tax returns until after the trial had begun. Therefore, appellee failed to comply with the discovery request. Appellee did not fail to supplement. Since he had not complied in the first place, there was nothing to supplement.
Accordingly, the proper sanctions are found in Rule 215(2)(b) which provides:
If a party ... fails to comply with proper discovery requests ... the court in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:
* * * * # *
(4)An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence. (Emphasis added).
Rule 215(2) sanctions, unlike those in former Rule 215(5), are not mandatory. Therefore, the trial court’s refusal to impose sanctions can be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. *221Shannon v. Fowler, 693 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1985, writ dism’d).
In the instant case, appellant was able to use the tax returns to effectively cross-examine appellee regarding moonlighting income. The tax returns in question were not introduced into evidence. I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose sanctions.
Accordingly, I concur in the result.

. Rule 215(5) was amended effective January 1, 1988.