Ricardo Flores, Ricardo Sandoval, and Ronald G. Hole v. Jesucita Garcia, Rafael Garcia, Yuvia Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Minor Rylan Martinez, 13-15-00047-CV

Appellees sued Flores and Sandoval for injuries from a tractor-trailer collision; Hole was their attorney and is also an appellant.
The trial court ordered Flores and Sandoval to appear for depositions at plaintiffs’ counsel’s office; defendants appeared but Sandoval’s deposition was suspended by Hole after contentious questioning about Sandoval’s English and use of an interpreter.
Hole filed a motion to require the deposition comply with the Rules; plaintiffs moved to strike defendants’ answer or impose sanctions ($3,500) for alleged noncompliance.
Plaintiffs submitted medical records with affidavits under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §18.001; Hole filed controverting affidavits asserting customary provider discounts and noncollection. Plaintiffs moved to strike Hole’s affidavits and to disqualify him as witness-counsel.
The court’s August 7 order denied disqualification, struck Hole’s controverting affidavit, granted a $3,500 sanction (jointly and severally against defendants and Hole), and allowed completion of the deposition under the Rules.
On October 16 the court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 13/Chapter 10 motion and assessed $1,000 in fees against defendants or Hole. The parties later settled the underlying case; appellants filed a limited appeal of the two sanction orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court abused discretion in imposing $3,500 discovery sanction for failing to comply with deposition order	Defendants intentionally refused to comply with the court’s order to be deposed; sanction appropriate	Defendants appeared at ordered time/place; Hole lawfully suspended Sandoval’s deposition under Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5(g) and (f); no evidence of bad faith by defendants; if sanctionable, it was counsel-only conduct	Reversed as an abuse of discretion; no evidence defendants disobeyed order; sanction unjust as to Flores and Sandoval because conduct attributable to counsel only
Trial court erred by imposing $1,000 Rule 13/Ch. 10 sanctions without stating particularized good cause or basis	Hole’s controverting affidavits were groundless/frivolous and warranted sanctions under Rule 13 and Ch. 10	Affidavits were filed in good faith; trial court failed to identify particulars showing bad faith, improper purpose, or lack of evidentiary support	Reversed: trial court failed to state required particularized findings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §10.005, precluding meaningful review; sanctions vacated

Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (mootness requires live controversy at all stages)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for sanctions is abuse of discretion)
Nath v. Tex. Children's Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (requirements for pleading sanctions and presumption of good faith)
Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (some evidence supports sanctions review)
Spohn Hosp. v. Mayer, 104 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2003) (sanction must target true offender; allocate responsibility between counsel and party)
Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. 2006) (sanction must have direct relationship to misconduct and not be excessive)
Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, Ltd. P'ship, 457 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2015) (effects of agreed judgment on appellate issues)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Burns Motors, Inc., 22 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2000) (consent judgments have same force as contested judgments)
Galindo v. Prosperity Partners, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014) (party should not be punished for counsel-only misconduct absent evidence party was implicated)
TransAm. Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (principle on party liability for counsel’s conduct)
Rudisell v. Paquette, 89 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (trial court must state particulars when imposing Rule 13/Ch.10 sanctions)