MacDonald Devin, PC and Patrick F. Madden v. John Rice, 05-14-00938-CV

Jon Rice (plaintiff) sued following a pedestrian-auto accident; CSC and SouthPak were represented by MacDonald Devin, PC and Patrick Madden (appellants); William Blake Hyde represented Rice.
Rice served production requests, interrogatories, and deposition notices; CSC asserted trade-secret objections to many requests and failed to verify interrogatory answers; corporate representative depositions were conditioned on Rice’s deposition and written discovery responses.
A June 14, 2013 courthouse discussion produced on-the-record statements about confidentiality and depositions; Hyde offered a Confidentiality Agreement afterward and Madden proposed a broader Confidentiality Order, reflecting materially different terms.
Rice moved to compel; after a June 28, 2013 hearing the trial court found no enforceable Rule 11 agreement (mutual mistake/misunderstanding), overruled most objections, ordered full verified responses and depositions, and awarded $4,500 in attorney’s fees and $75 costs to Rice under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(d).
Appellants appealed only the award of fees/costs, arguing (1) the trial court disregarded a Rule 11 agreement, (2) the fee award was an improper/excessive sanction and addressed matters not set for hearing, and (3) the fee award lacked legally sufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by disregarding parties’ Rule 11 discovery agreement	Rice: no reversible error; trial court correctly found no enforceable meeting of the minds	MacDonald Devin/Madden: parties reached a binding Rule 11 confidentiality agreement on June 14	Court: no error — record shows mutual mistake/ misunderstanding about essential term (implementation), so no enforceable agreement
Whether the fee award was an improper or excessive sanction and included matters not set for hearing	Rice: award was reimbursement under Rule 215.1(d) for expenses incurred obtaining the order	Appellants: award was a sanction for conduct they did not commit; included issues not in motion and was excessive	Court: treated award as Rule 215.1(d) expenses (not punitive); appellants failed to show opposition was "substantially justified" or award unjust; objections to amount/segregation waived or inadequately briefed
Whether evidence supporting attorney’s fees was legally insufficient	Rice: Hyde’s affidavit and testimony (hours, experience, customary rate) provided sufficient proof; court may also take judicial notice of customary fees	Appellants: Hyde failed to prove Arthur Andersen factors to support fee amount	Court: evidence was legally sufficient to support $4,500 (trial court could rely on affidavit/testimony and judicial notice); Andersen factors satisfied as applicable

Bandera Cnty. v. Hollingsworth, 419 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (Rule 11 agreements treated as contracts; meeting of the minds required)
Dallas Cnty. v. Rischon Dev. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (contract principles apply to Rule 11 agreements)
TransAm. Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (discusses standards for discovery sanctions)
Blake v. Dorado, 211 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (awards under rule 215.1(d) are expense reimbursements, not punitive sanctions)
Hanley v. Hanley, 813 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (Rule 215.1(d) awards reimburse moving party; not intended as penalty)
Rammah v. Abdeljaber, 235 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing Rule 215.1(d) awards)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (trial court may take judicial notice of customary fees)
In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1998) (sanction must be supported by record showing abuse of discovery process)
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (factors relevant in assessing reasonable attorney’s fees)