Len Critcher, Brett Stacy, Imagine Automotive Group v. Boardwalk Motor Cars, LTD. Porche/Audi/Volkswagen
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4954
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Boardwalk sued its dealerships for TTLA theft claims and alleged appellants bribed employees and stole cars; discovery disputes centered on payments to Boardwalk employees and car transactions.
- Four categories of documents were at issue: checks/payments, QuickBooks records, CGI data, and evidence of payments for eleven allegedly stolen cars.
- The trial court repeatedly compelled production, appointed an auditor, and imposed sanctions, including striking defenses, after finding extensive discovery abuse.
- A jury later awarded Boardwalk damages under TTLA and breaches of fiduciary duty, with additional sanctions for discovery abuse.
- The trial court allocated attorney’s fees and costs, and held appellants liable for sanctions, ultimately affirming on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the death penalty sanction justified? | Sanctions were appropriate given persistent noncompliance. | Less intrusive sanctions were available and should have been tried first. | Yes; sanctions proper and not abuso of discretion. |
| Did sanctions bar evidence on causation for damages? | Evidence of theft/payments relevant to damages should be admissible. | Sanctioned evidence should be excluded as causation proof. | Sanction effectively barred causation evidence tied to nonpayment. |
| Are sanctions properly imposed against counsel as well as the clients? | Sanctions should reflect counsel's conduct as control of discovery. | Sanctions should target clients, not counsel. | Sanctions upheld against appellants; apportionment partial and reduced. |
| Did Critcher have possession, custody, or control of disputed documents? | Critcher controlled relevant corporate and CGI data. | Critcher lacked possession/control under Rule 192.3(b). | Critcher had possession/control; argument rejected. |
| Was the damaged-form jury instruction proper in light of sanctions? | Damages form properly instructed after liability was established. | Broad-form questions risk merging theories and harm review. | Charge allowed; any error harmless given TTLA damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must be just and not excessive)
- Response Time, Inc. v. Sterling Commerce (N. Am.), Inc., 95 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (death-penalty sanctions require lesser sanctions first)
- Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2012) (Paradigm II; default damages participation; sanctions tailoring)
- Kirkpatrick v. Memorial Hospital of Garland, 862 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993) (hospital may present causation defenses despite sanctions)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (death-penalty sanctions must be justified and not excessive)
- GTE Communications Systems Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1993) (possession includes right to obtain possession)
- Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (avoid broad-form errors; ensure proper guidance in charges)
- Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000) (broad-form liability questions; reversible error when mixing theories)
- Harris County v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2002) (harm from broad-form questions when unsupported evidence)
- American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. 1990) (reimbursement as remedy for discovery prejudice; limit on sanctions)