Alfredo A. Galindo and Idalia M. Galindo Elizabeth Bohorquez And Michael Whitmire v. Prosperity Partners, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 690

Galindo and spouse sued Prosperity Partners, Comet Financial, Great West Life & Annuity, Bransen, Midland States Life, and Simoes in 2005 over a 2001 assignment and related transactions.
Allegations include misrepresentation, usury, fraud, DTPA violations, and negligence; defense sought production of privileged documents from counsel and accountants.
Trial court ordered production; Privilege asserted but offensive-use doctrine allowed some questioning; depositions were re-taken after sanctions hearing.
Sanctions order waived certain privileges, required payment of $10,600 and $12,204.90 per deposition, and mandated redepositions at Galindos’ expense.
Galindos could not pay; after mandamus relief denial, depositions were noticed; court dismissed case for failure to pay sanctions—affirmed on appeal but later reversed.
Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed sanctions and dismissal, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were sanctions unjust and case-determinative?	Galindos: sanctions were unjust and determinative; no lesser sanction was tried.	Appellees: sanctions justified to deter abuse and ensure compliance.	Sanctions not upheld; order improper and case-determinative.
Did sanctions lack direct relation to offensive conduct by Galindos?	Galindos were not the offenders; privilege issues belonged to counsel.	Appellees: Galindos’ conduct warranted sanctions.	Direct relationship not shown; sanctions reversed for lack of causal link.
Are penalties vague as to which attorneys should pay and are they properly tailored?	Vague as to individual attorneys; multiple counsel involved.	Sanctions could be enforced against plaintiffs and counsel collectively.	Sanctions improper due to vagueness and lack of specific attorney liability.
Did Braden v. Downey requirements for preclusive effect apply?	Braden requirements not satisfied; risk of preclusion without final judgment.	Trial court had authority to impose sanctions earlier.	Braden noncompliance; trial court abused discretion; dismissal reversed.
Was due process violated for Whitmire and Bohorquez regarding notice of sanctions?	Due process requires notice and specific imposition against them.	Not explicitly addressed since sanctions reversed.	Not reached; addressed only to extent necessary due to reversal.

Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1985) (offensive-use doctrine for waiving privileges in discovery)
Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991) (preclusion effect of monetary sanctions; Braden requirements)
Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988) (preclusion considerations for monetary sanctions)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (direct relationship between conduct and sanctions; just sanctions)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (sanctions must be based on guiding rules and principles)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (sanctions and abuse of discretion standard of review)