in Re RH White Oak, LLC, Brian Hardy, Colin Zak, Entex Partners, Ltd., and Entex Management Services, L.L.C., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1334

Relators sought mandamus to overturn a sanctions order issued Oct. 25, 2013 in Harris County.
Trial court granted evidentiary sanctions, barred discovery, and awarded substantial attorney’s fees and monetary sanctions.
Evidence at hearing included a version of the Oct. 6, 2008 letter with genuine signatures not produced until a trial subpoena, plus emails and expert forensic reports.
Forensic analysis showed conflicting conclusions: one expert opined forged signatures; another opined genuine signatures on the letter.”
The court concluded relators had the October 6, 2008 letter with genuine signatures in possession and sanctioned them accordingly, including death-penalty-like evidentiary sanctions.
Relators challenged the sanctions as excessive and improperly motivated, and alleged lack of lesser sanctions prior to death-penalty sanctions, also alleging inadequate remedy by appeal.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing death-penalty sanctions	Relators contend sanctions were not properly tied to conduct	Lone Star/Hajdik argue sanctions were warranted for discovery abuse	Yes, trial court abused discretion by evidentiary sanctions lacking proper nexus
Whether lesser sanctions were tested or available before death-penalty sanctions	There were no effective lesser sanctions tested	Court considered lesser sanctions but found them insufficient	Court erred in not testing lesser sanctions or explaining inadequacy before death-penalty sanctions
Whether relators have adequate remedy by appeal for monetary sanctions	Monetary sanctions threaten continued litigation	Monetary sanctions can be appealed post-judgment	Yes, as to monetary sanctions relief not warranted in mandamus; court retained this issue in part
Whether the sanctions order violated nexus and proportionality requirements	Sanctions not properly linked to specific misconduct	Sanctions directly address discovery abuse and are proportional	Dismissed; court found death-penalty sanctions lacked proper nexus, contributing to abuse of discretion

Global Servs., Inc. v. Bianchi, 901 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1995) (burden to prove discovery abuse exists; circumstantial evidence allowed)
GTE Commc’ns Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. 1993) (sanctions require evidence of discovery abuse; not mere assertions)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (death-penalty sanctions adjudicate merits; may be case-determinative)
Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must be proportionate and tied to conduct)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (necessity to test lesser sanctions before death penalties; direct relationship required)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus standard for abuse of discretion; no adequate remedy by appeal in some sanctions contexts)
In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. 2008) (examines balancing mandamus relief and adequacy of appellate remedy)
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (guides balancing benefits/detriments of mandamus relief)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (considerations for keeping or granting mandamus relief)
In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. 2006) (record limits on mandamus relief; appellate review constraints)
In re Christus Health, 276 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (adequacy of remedy and sanctions review in mandamus context)
Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1992) ( futility of reconsideration motions before mandamus)