Diana Convenience, LLC, HQ Food, Inc., Hajar Convenience, LLC, Shark Phones, LLC, and AMK Convenience, LLC v. Dollar ATM, LLC, 05-20-00936-CV

Dollar ATM sued five convenience-store defendants alleging breaches of ATM "Placement Agreements" (2014–2016) and sought shared surcharge revenue after defendants removed or tampered with ATMs.
Appellee served interrogatories and production requests seeking (among other things) who signed the agreements, whether signatories had authority, and ATM surcharge revenues; defendants served incomplete and late supplemental responses.
Trial court granted Dollar ATM’s January 28, 2020 motion to compel and ordered defendants to pay $1,050 in attorney’s fees; defendants still failed to fully comply with discovery.
The court granted a continuance in February 2020, withheld ruling on sanctions, and later denied counsel’s motion to withdraw after a change in representation.
At a remote bench trial on July 23, 2020, the court imposed "death penalty" discovery sanctions: it established that the signatories had authority to bind the defendants and barred defendants from contesting ATM revenue; defendants rested without presenting evidence and judgment was entered for Dollar ATM.
On appeal defendants challenged the January 28, 2020 fee award and the July 23, 2020 death-penalty sanctions; the court vacated the interim fee award for lack of evidentiary support and affirmed the death-penalty sanctions and final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing death-penalty discovery sanctions (precluding defendants from contesting signatory authority and revenue)	Dollar ATM: defendants repeatedly abused discovery; sanctions were warranted and defendants waived appellate complaint by failing to preserve error	Defendants: sanctions denied ability to contest core defenses; failure to comply was attributable to prior counsel and COVID-related disruption; sanctions violated due process	Affirmed—court found repeated discovery noncompliance (including before counsel change), that lesser sanctions had been tried, and that the sanction directly related to the abuse and was not excessive
Whether the trial court erred in awarding $1,050 in attorney’s fees in the January 28, 2020 motion-to-compel order	Dollar ATM: the award was proper; appellants lack standing to attack it because they have not shown they paid it (and record ambiguous about payment)	Defendants: award lacked legally sufficient evidence of the reasonableness and amount of fees as required by rule and by Rohrmoos/Nath	Vacated and rendered—no evidence was offered to prove reasonable fees, so the interim fee award was set aside and appellee takes nothing as to that award

TransAm. Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (standards for discovery sanctions; direct relationship and non-excessiveness)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings)
Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (sanctions must remedy prejudice and be directed at abusive conduct)
Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 576 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2019) (Nath II) (attorney-fee sanctions require evidence of reasonable fees per Rohrmoos)
Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019) (evidentiary requirement for reasonable attorney-fee awards)
Altesse Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. Wilson, 540 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2018) (death-penalty sanctions should be reserved for flagrant bad faith or callous disregard)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (limitations on sanctions and requirement that lesser measures be considered)
Shops at Legacy (Inland), Ltd. P’ship v. Fine Autographs & Memorabilia Retail Stores Inc., 418 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (example of reviewing consideration of less-stringent sanctions)