The Fifth Court reversed a sanctions award arising from a discovery dispute involving a subpoena to a health-care provider, finding weaknesses in the supporting record that included these matters:

  • Technical problems with the subpoena papers. “Incomplete preparation and service of the subpoena, however, is not evidence of Allstate’s bad faith, harassment, or improper purpose necessary to overcome the presumption that pleadings are made in good faith.”
  • Other litigation. “ROSIT’s allegations of sanctionable conduct rest on its contention that, based on a history of intentional noncompliance in other cases, Allstate intentionally failed to comply with the requirements for service of a subpoena and then filed the motion in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and to harass ROSIT. The trial court’s findings of sanctionable conduct were based in part on this history. But Allstate’s motion for sanctions with its attachments was limited to ROSIT’s noncompliance with service in this case.”
  • Alleged discovery agreement. “In its motion and at the hearing, and as reflected in the trial court’s findings and conclusions, ROSIT complained of Lexitas’s ‘repeated refusal to comply’ with an alleged agreement regarding service of depositions on written questions directed to ROSIT in this and other cases. Although the trial court cited this failure in its findings, no evidence of any such agreement was admitted.”

Allstate Property & Casualty Co. v. Ford, No. 05-20-00463-CV (Oct. 15, 2021) (mem. op.).

The post No Foundation for Sanctions Award appeared first on 600 Commerce.