Court Opinion

ID: 9770191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:54:05.023746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.707496
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
For the first time in Texas jurisprudence, an attorney has been assessed a monetary sanction for the conduct of his client. The majority opinion holds that the trial court had authority to sanction the attorney pursuant to Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 215 is entitled “ABUSE OF DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS,” and Rule 215(2)(b)(2) provides:
If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated ... to testify on behalf of a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests or to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, ... 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:
An order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both against the disobedient party or the attorney advising him.
The majority opinion acknowledges that there are no cases from any Texas court which authorize monetary sanctions against an attorney for violations of the provisions of Rule 215. Not finding this a prohibition, the majority attempts to make new law in Texas by apparently holding that we are to be governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37. That portion of the federal rule is similar to Rule 215 in that it provides sanctions against a party or the attorney “advising” that party. The majority opinion cites two federal cases as authority to support the imposition of these sanctions against an attorney. The first case cited by the majority opinion is inapposite because sanctions against an attorney were not an issue. However, the court indicated in dicta that such sanctions “could have been” imposed without citing any case law to support the imposition of such a sanction. Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 869 (3rd Cir.1984). In the second case cited, the Ninth Circuit did affirm a $500 sanction against the attorney for the government who was a party to the case. It is interest*767ing to note why the federal court imposed the sanction:
... the district judge imposed the preclusion sanction on the government only after 18 months of delays and failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The court considered that the government counsel’s failure to provide timely answers to interrogatories or to provide at any point prior to trial a final tabulation of the government’s damages, may have been more the result of serious understaffing than of bad faith.
United States v. Sumitomo Marine and Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir.1980) (emphasis added). Further, the court held:
Rule 37(b) specifically provides that such sanctions shall be assessed against the attorney for the disobedient party. In this case, because Rule 37(f) prevents the assessment against the United States of fees and expenses not authorized by statute, the district court’s only available target for such sanctions was the government’s counsel.
Id. at 1371 (emphasis added). Clearly the federal courts used this single case to send a message to the government (not the attorney) because Rule 37(f) prohibited sanctions against the government. It is also interesting to note that subsequent to U.S. v. Sumitomo, Rule 37(f) was repealed. The majority opinion cites no other federal authority, and I can find none, which authorizes sanctions against an attorney unless the attorney is found to have given advice to the client that resulted in the sanctiona-ble conduct.
Where it is clear the attorney advised the client to disobey court-ordered discovery, the federal courts have upheld sanctions against the attorney. When the attorney ignored court orders and advised a client he did not have to establish a debtor-in-possession account or obtain bankruptcy court approval for the use of cash generated from hotels involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, sanctions against the attorney were proper. Midwest Properties No. Two v. Big Hill Investment Co., 93 B.R. 357, 363 (N.D.Tex.1988). Also, when attorneys advised clients not to comply with a court order to produce documents, and advised their clients not to appear at court-ordered depositions, sanctions against the attorneys were proper. Goldman v. Alhadeff, 131 F.R.D. 188 (W.D.Wash.1990). Attorneys who fail to produce parties for deposition, after ordered to do so by the court, are punishable under the federal rules by sanctions against the attorney violating the court order. Mangas Electronics v. Masco Corp., 871 F.2d 626 (7th Cir.1989).
Turning to the evidence cited in the majority opinion as support for affirming the sanctions against appellant, the opinion discusses documents sought to be discovered in Salisbury, Maryland. There is no pleading, evidence, information or allegation in the record, or in the majority opinion, which alleges that appellant had any knowledge of or control over documents located in the state of Maryland. There is simply no showing that appellant was in any way at fault if attorney for plaintiff was unable to discover or retrieve such documents in Maryland. The majority opinion next discusses an employee of appellant who was responsible for preparing defendant Wilson’s Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production, and seems to find it reprehensible that the attorney working with the appellant’s associate accepted the client’s statement that everything had been produced. If a client tells his attorney that he has produced everything that has been requested, but in fact has not, the attorney shall not be sanctioned for the lies of his client. There are no pleadings or proof that appellant advised defendant Wilson to lie, or even that appellant had knowledge that the client had lied.
The majority opinion next discusses the infamous conversation in the elevator where the appellant failed to be cordial to plaintiff’s attorney. The conversation centered around plaintiff’s attorney asking the appellant if he would be present at defendant Wilson’s deposition the following day, and appellant responded that he didn’t know. Plaintiff’s attorney seemed to take that response as a personal affront, she mentioned it in every pleading filed subsequent to that date, and used it as a basis *768for an “emergency” motion for sanctions. Based upon the recitation in the judgment, appellant was apparently sanctioned for his failure to be cordial.
This controversy in the elevator centers around the noticed deposition of defendant Wilson for October 18, 1988. Prior to that time, the defendant Wilson had filed personal bankruptcy in the federal court. Attorney for plaintiff was successful in getting a stay lifted by telling the federal court that the case was set for trial in the civil district court of Harris County. However, affidavits in this record indicate that the case was not set for trial and it appears that the stay was lifted by misrepresentation to the federal court. Nonetheless, appellant contends that he had not represented defendant Wilson since the date of the pro se bankruptcy filing and that it was not economically feasible to attend the deposition on behalf of the corporate defendants. Also, on the morning of October 18, 1988, defendant Wilson filed a motion with the trial court requesting permission to proceed pro se and advised the court that appellant McFarland was no longer his attorney. Attached to the motion was a certificate of service on plaintiffs attorney.
On October 18, 1988, defendant Wilson appeared as noticed for his deposition and appellant McFarland, who was no longer his attorney, did not appear. Plaintiffs attorney chose not to continue with the deposition because appellant was not present. She then used appellant’s absence as a basis for another “emergency” motion for sanctions. Neither the plaintiffs attorney nor the majority opinion has cited us to any authority that prohibits an attorney from proceeding with a noticed deposition of a party simply because the party’s attorney is not present. Further, I am not aware of any such prohibition. Subsequently, appellant was assessed monetary sanctions for alleged costs incurred by the plaintiff who, for her own reasons, terminated the deposition. The decision not to depose defendant Wilson was made solely by plaintiff’s attorney, and the failure to proceed with the deposition on that date cannot in any way be attributed to any act or omission on the part of appellant.
The majority opinion concludes, based upon the events as discussed above, that the “discovery abuses resulted from McFarland’s dilatoriness, and the trial court was within its authority to impose sanctions.” The majority then overrules appellant’s first, second, and fifth points of error.
It is of particular concern to me that there is no allegation in any pleading, and there is no discussion or allegation that any evidence exists, that appellant at any time “advised” a party to this lawsuit to disobey discovery orders of the court. It is my firm belief that a trial court is totally devoid of any authority to assess monetary sanctions against an attorney in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish that the attorney’s advice to his client resulted in the conduct complained of and found abusive by the trial court. See Kilgarlin & Jackson, Sanctions for Discovery Abuse under New Rule 215, 15 St. Mary’s L.J. 767 (1984). Both the Texas and the Federal rule are explicit in their language concerning when sanctions may be imposed against an attorney, and the operative word is “advising”. It is clear to me that absent proof that the attorney advised the party to commit the act or omission complained of, there is simply no authority for sanctions against the party’s attorney. As a side note, I bring attention to the only portion of the rule which provides for sanctions against a non-party. Tex.R.Civ.P. 215(2)(c) provides that when a non-party fails to comply with the discovery orders pursuant to rule 167, the court issuing the order may treat the failure to obey as a contempt of court. Therefore, a trial court only has jurisdiction to find a non-party in contempt for failure to comply with discovery orders, and the court is without jurisdiction to impose sanctions for noncompliance against a non-party. Texas Attorney General’s Office v. Adams, 793 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1990, no writ).
The majority opinion also errs in affirming the trial court sanctions because: Tex. R.Civ.P. 215(2)(b)(2) provides only for sanctions in the amount of “the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both ...,” and subparagraph (8) provides only *769for the payment of reasonable expenses including attorney fees. It is clear from the judgment of the court, which will be discussed later, that the trial court assessed sanctions in excess of the authority provided pursuant to Rule 215. Further, but of equal importance, the trial court was wholly without authority to consider sua sponte matters that had not been alleged in the motion for sanctions. Zep Manufacturing Co. v. Anthony, 752 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding).
The motion upon which the trial court issued the sanctions, Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions — Motion to Compel — Motion for Contempt, was filed on October 18, 1988. This motion requested only two sanctions against appellant. In paragraph VII, plaintiffs requested:
(1) that the trial court strike the pleadings of defendant Wilson,
(2) that the trial court strike the pleadings of the defendant corporations,
(3) that the trial court assess $2500 sanctions against defendant Wilson and appellant McFarland, jointly and severally, for the conduct of defendant Wilson regarding the depositions in July 1988, and
(4) that the trial court assess $2000 sanctions against defendant Wilson and appellant attorney, jointly and severally, for the costs incurred in the depositions of October 18th.
In the judgment made the basis of this appeal, not only did the trial court strike the pleadings of the defendant Wilson and the defendant corporations, and find all defendants liable and all causes of action pled by the plaintiff established as a matter of law, but the trial court further assessed the following sanctions against appellant:
(1) $9,837.50 as sanctions assessed against the defendants and the appellant attorney, jointly and severally, as reasonable attorney fees as a result of abuse of discovery processes.
(2) $2,323 as sanctions assessed against defendant and the appellant attorney, jointly and severally, as attorney fees and video deposition expenses in attempting to take defendant Wilson’s deposition October 18, 1988, as well as video technician expenses pursuant to an evidentiary hearing on the motion for sanctions held December 8, 1988.
(3) $6,000 as sanctions against defendants and appellant attorney, jointly and severally, to reimburse necessary and reasonable attorney fees for abuse of discovery process.
(4) $2,000 as sanctions against the appellant attorney “to compensate plaintiffs for the inconvenience caused by [appellant’s] conduct and to discourage and deter such unprofessional and uncooperative conduct by an officer of this Court in the future.”
(5) $2,000 as sanctions against appellant attorney “to compensate plaintiff Estrada for the inconvenience caused by [appellant’s] conduct and to discourage and deter such unprofessional and uncooperative conduct by an officer of this Court in the future.”
Although the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions requested sanctions for two specific violations, the court found five. Further, although the motion for sanctions requested monetary sanctions against the defendant and the appellant jointly and severally in the amount of $4,500, the trial court assessed sanctions against the appellant in the amount of $22,160.50. Clearly, the actions of the trial court are wholly without support in Texas case law, in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or even in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Sanction (1) is not connected to any specific request for sanctions or order of the court which was violated by the appellant. If it was for the failure of defendant Wilson to appear for deposition on July 29, 1988, that deposition was stayed by federal law due to the bankruptcy action filed by Wilson. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a)(1) (West Supp.1990). If it was for something else, not specifically requested in the Motion for Sanctions, the trial court had no authority to impose this sanction. Zep Manufacturing Co., 152 S.W.2d at 689.
Sanction (2) was requested by motion; however, the deposition was terminated solely by attorney for plaintiff. Appellant was under no court order or legal duty to *770appear and cannot be sanctioned for something not authorized by Rule 215.
Sanction (3) was not requested in the Motion for Sanctions; therefore, it was error as shown earlier in this opinion.
Sanctions (4) and (5) are the most egregious. This is no authority for the trial court to assess a monetary sanction against an attorney for the “inconvenience” he allegedly caused a party.
I also disagree with the majority conclusion that the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions was a three day hearing, and that appellant failed to bring a complete record to this court because we do not have the statement of facts from the hearings on December 6-7, 1988. (We do have the statement of facts from December 8, 1988).
In the order made the basis of this appeal, the trial court stated:
An evidentiary hearing of the Motions for Contempt occurred on December 6 and 7, 1988. The Court has not ruled on the Motions for Contempt and such motions are still being considered by the Court at this time. This order pertains only to the Plaintiffs’ motions seeking sanctions for discovery abuses pursuant to Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
On Thursday, December 8, 1988, a complete evidentiary hearing was held by this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motions Requesting Sanctions for discovery abuses, (empahsis added).
Therefore, the majority errs in concluding “we must assume the evidence from the first two days supports the trial court’s orders.” Appellees’ brief at page 19 discusses notice to appellant at the end of the “first part of the bifurcated evidentiary hearing which took two days.” This error by the majority resulted in their overruling points of error three and four related to due process and notice.
In summary, the trial court and the majority opinion erred in assessing and affirming sanctions against appellant in the absence of pleading and proof that appellant advised the party to commit the conduct complained of. Rule 215 does not provide authority for the trial court to assess monetary sanctions against appellant under these pleadings and facts.
Further, the trial court erred in assessing and the majority erred in affirming any and all sanctions that were assessed by the court sua sponte. Without pleadings, proof, and a request for such specific relief, the trial court had no authority to assess any sanctions sua sponte. Accordingly, I would sustain all points of error and I would reverse the judgment of the trial court as to all sanctions against the appellant, and affirm the remainder of the judgment.