Opinion
No. 05-09-00473-CV
Opinion Filed June 10, 2010.
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 416-02623-2008.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In three issues, appellant VocalSpace LLC appeals the trial court's order imposing sanctions against Daniel D. Lorenso and Larkspark Corporation (Larkspark) for "violating Section 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure." Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a). For the reason set forth below, we vacate the trial court's "Order Imposing Sanctions."
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Daniel D. Lorenso worked as an employee for VocalSpace. In June 2008, Lorenso terminated his employment with VocalSpace and created Larkspark Corporation. On August 28, 2008, VocalSpace filed suit against Larkspark for misappropriation of trade secrets and injunctive relief. On December 15, 2008, Larkspark served VocalSpace with a set of written discovery that included interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admissions, and a request for disclosure. On January 22, 2009, Larkspark sent counsel for VocalSpace a letter noting that responses to the written discovery were overdue. On February 23, 2009, counsel for Larkspark filed in the trial court a "Notification of Outstanding Discovery" in which Larkspark asserted "Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendants' discovery requests" and "all Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted." In that notification, Larkspark contended that "due to Plaintiff's failure to timely respond to Defendants' discovery requests, and given the deemed admissions, there exists no questions of fact or law for the Court to consider at trial," and requested that "Defendants be granted all relief requested in Defendants' original answer including, costs, attorneys fees and expenses."
On the date of the trial setting March 2, 2009, Larkspark and VocalSpace appeared and announced ready for trial. After its announcement and before offering evidence, VocalSpace non-suited its claims against Larkspark.
Subsequent to the non-suit, Larkspark filed a Motion for Sanctions in which it sought sanctions under the rule 13 and rule 197 of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure for "ignoring discovery" and for "filing a groundless petition." At the hearing on the motion, VocalSpace presented evidence that it "was not aware of the written discovery served by Appellees until late February, shortly before the trial setting and did not intentionally fail to respond to the written discovery." Larkspark presented evidence of its attorneys fees incurred during the defense of the suit. The trial court's "Order Imposing Sanctions" expressly found VocalSpace LLC violated Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and imposed sanctions ordering VocalSpace to pay appellees the sum of $6,887.50. VocalSpace timely filed its notice of appeal.
II. SANCTIONS
In three issues, VocalSpace contends the trial court erred by imposing sanctions because (1) "there was no direct nexus among the offensive conduct, the alleged offender, and the sanctions imposed" (2) "the district court failed to consider lesser sanctions," and (3) "the Appellant had waived their request for sanctions."
A. Standard of Review and Applicable law
We review the imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007) (citing Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. 2006), and Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004)). An appellate court may reverse the trial court's ruling only if the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles, such that its ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable. Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 838-39. In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion, we consider (1) whether there is a "direct relationship" between the abusive conduct and the sanction imposed and (2) whether the sanction is excessive. TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991); Hanley v. Hanley, 813 S.W.2d 511, 522-23 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, no writ).
When a trial court finds a party has failed to comply with proper discovery requests, has failed to obey discovery orders, or has otherwise abused the discovery process, the court is authorized to impose a sanction that is just under the circumstances. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215; In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex. 1998). In order to impose sanctions under Rule 215, the party requesting sanctions must obtain a pretrial ruling on the discovery dispute that exists before commencement of the trial. Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Tex. 2005); Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993). "Failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver." Remington Arms Co., 850 S.W.2d at 170.
B. Application of Law to Facts
Larkspark's motion sought sanctions because of VocalSpace's failure to respond to Larkspark's pre-trial discovery requests and for "filing a groundless petition." Although Larkspark cited only rule 13 and rule 197 in its motion for sanctions, the trial court's order stated sanctions were awarded pursuant to Rule 215. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215. Accordingly, we limit our review to Rule 215 . See Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 51 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1994, writ denied) (concluding that when an order of sanctions refers to one specified rule or tracks a rule's language, the appellate court is confined to determining whether sanctions are proper under that rule alone).
Larkspark's motion for sanction complained about pre-trial "discovery abuse." However, Larkspark did not file a motion to compel or otherwise request a ruling on the "discovery abuse" prior to the commencement of trial. Rather, a week before the date of the trial setting, Larkspark filed a "Notification of Outstanding Discovery" in which it asserted the failure to respond to the written discovery requests were "deemed admissions." Thereafter, on the date of the trial setting, Larkspark announced that it was "ready" to proceed with trial. Larkspark's motion was filed subsequent to VocalSpace's dismissal of the suit. We conclude that Larkspark waived any claim for sanctions because Larkspark did not request a pre-trial ruling on the outstanding discovery requests before announcing ready for trial. Cf. Meyer, 167 S.W.3d at 333 (concluding that "failure to obtain a pre-trial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct" (citing Remington Arms Co., 850 S.W.2d at 170)).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's "Order Imposing Sanctions."