In Re William Schiaffo and Reba Schiaffo v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00098-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00098-CV __________________

IN RE WILLIAM SCHIAFFO AND REBA SCHIAFFO

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-12-18040 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relators William Schiaffo and Reba

Schiaffo contend the trial court abused its discretion by resolving a discovery and

sanctions dispute based on representations opposing counsel made to the trial court

during the hearing. We deny the petition.

We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A trial

1 court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion

if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. “The scope of

discovery is largely within the trial court’s discretion.” In re Colonial Pipeline Co.,

968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).

On December 5, 2025, the trial court signed an order granting in part

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Motion for Sanctions against Defendant and Defense

Counsel, filed pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 215 and 13, Chapter 10

of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and the Court’s inherent authority.

In the order, the trial court found that the defendant, Joshua White, engaged in willful

discovery abuse, ordered White to pay $5,800 to Schiaffo as reimbursement for

preparation and attending a first deposition on May 8, 2025, ordered White to pay

$2,310 to Schiaffo for drafting and filing a response to Defendant’s Motion for

Sanctions and Motion to Exclude, ordered White to appear for a continued

deposition before January 31, 2025, ordered White to pay one-half of the court

reporter’s and videographer’s fees, and set the case for trial on March 16, 2026.

2 Relators complain that the trial court should have granted a harsher sanction

against the Real Party in Interest. Relators contend the sanctions granted by the trial

court are not “meaningful sanctions.” Relators allege the trial court failed to

independently verify the representations made by the Real Party and deprived

Relators of the procedural means to test or rebut the factual accuracy of opposing

counsel’s assertions. Relators argue the discovery they sought from Real Party in

Interest Joshua White has been irretrievably lost and it has irreparably compromised

their claims and defenses. Relators ask for a writ of mandamus directing the trial

court to vacate its sanctions order, reconsider Relators’ Second Motion for

Sanctions, and issue “meaningful sanctions.”

A trial court possesses an inherent authority to sanction for bad faith abuse of

the judicial process. Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, 718

(Tex. 2020). A sanction must be just and not excessive. Id. To appropriate or just,

the record must reveal a direct nexus between the improper conduct and the sanction

imposed. See Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007). “Imposing an

available sanction is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Koslow’s v.

Mackie, 796 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Tex. 1990).

This petition is somewhat unique. In most mandamus proceedings challenging

a trial court’s sanction order, the Relator is the party who has been sanctioned and

who complains the sanctions are too harsh. In contrast to the usual scenario, here the

3 Relator is not the party who was sanctioned, and the Relator is complaining that the

sanctions were not harsh enough. Relators argue the sanction imposed by the trial

court was too lenient because White’s discovery abuse deprived Relator of important

evidence that would have been available if the Real Party had not engaged in willful

discovery abuse and misrepresentation. We conclude Relators have failed to

establish that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the complained-of order.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).1

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 4, 2026 Opinion Delivered March 5, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1 Relators’ pending motion for leave to file certain confidential documents under seal is denied as moot. 4