Court Not Specifying the Particulars of Good Cause

In Closs v. Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 874 S.W.2d 859, 879 (Tex. App. -- Texarkana 1994, no writ), we found the error harmless where the trial court did not state the particulars of good cause. In that case, we stated that "the trial court, by failing to specify the particulars of the good cause supporting its order striking the affidavit, has not so obscured its reasoning as to prevent Closs from being able to present this issue on appeal." Id. at 880. Several other courts have held similarly. See Gorman v. Gorman, 966 S.W.2d 858, 867-868 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Bloom v. Graham, 825 S.W.2d 244, 247 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1992, writ denied); Powers v. Palacios, 771 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). In Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991), the Supreme Court held that for a sanction to be just two conditions must exist: there must be a relationship between the offensive conduct and the sanction imposed, and the sanction must not be excessive. Another requirement for a just sanction under Rule 13 is that a party should not be punished for counsel's conduct unless the party is implicated in that conduct apart from merely having entrusted the party's legal representation to counsel. Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d at 917; Glass v. Glass, 826 S.W.2d 683, 687 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1992, writ denied).