Shane Langston v. Freese & Goss, PLLC, Richard A. Freese, Tim K. Goss, Sheila M. Bossier, Dennis C. Sweet, and Sweet & Freese, PLLC
05-15-00458-CV
Tex. App.Jun 4, 2015Background
- Langston and Langston are Mississippi attorneys who moved to Texas and are non-parties to the underlying civil action between Freese & Goss, et al. and other attorneys; sanctions were sought against them via deposition subpoenas duces tecum issued by F&G; subpoenas were alleged to be abusive, overly broad, and served only in a manner that created a Show Cause order without their presence or knowledge; the trial court quashed the subpoenas, found them unreasonable and overly broad, but denied sanctions without explanation; the relevant order to review is a final sanction order against a non-party; the appeal concerns whether such an order is a final, reviewable order under applicable law; the movants represent themselves pro se and contend the sanctions order has no nexus to the underlying action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the sanctions order against a non-party final and appealable? | Langston argues finality and reviewability apply even to non-parties. | F&G contends standard finality rules apply only to parties/counsel. | Sanctions against a non-party may be appealable as final. |
| Does the collateral/exceptional-finality doctrine allow non-party review of sanctions orders? | Langston relies on exceptions like Cohen collateral order. | F&G maintains no ordinary finality for non-parties. | Collateral order doctrine can apply to non-parties where conditions are met. |
| What governing authority governs finality for non-party sanctions in Texas and federal law? | Ron Smith cited; argues non-party sanctions can be reviewed on final appeal. | Ron Smith inadequate for non-party context; requires different analysis. | Non-party sanctions may be reviewed on final appeal consistent with finality principles. |
| Do federal cases like United States v. CBS support appellate review of non-party sanctions before final judgment? | Non-parties may challenge costs and sanctions early. | Review should wait until final judgment or specific exception applies. | Non-party sanctions may be appealable under narrow, collateral-finality principles. |
| Do cited Texas/federal cases require a nexus to the underlying action for finality to attach? | There is no nexus between non-party sanctions and the underlying action. | Finality must connect to the underlying action or be subject to separate review rules. | Finality analysis may treat non-party sanctions as standalone reviewable orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- OSRecovery, Inc. v. One Group International, Inc., 462 F.3d 87 (2nd Cir. 2006) (recognizes finality principles in sanctions context (non-party relevant))
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors, 925 A.2d 197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (finality considerations for non-parties in sanctions)
- Covey Oil Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 340 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1965) (collateral-order-like considerations in discovery sanctions)
- Burden-Meeks v. Welch, 319 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes party vs. non-party appellate rights in sanctions)
- United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 466 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1984) (finality and costs-related issues in discovery context)
- In re Ron Smith, 192 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. 2006) (Texas pronounces finality rule for sanctions on parties; non-party distinction noted)
- Arndt v. Farris, 633 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1982) (adequate review of discovery sanctions when final)