In JNS Enterprise, Inc. v. Dixie Demolition, LLC, No. 03-10-664 (Tex. App. July 17, 2013), plaintiffs JNS and Leesboro alleged that defendants had entered into and breached a “performance guaranty” relating to plaintiffs’ scrap metal purchase contracts. In discovery, plaintiffs produced two purchase agreements between JNS and Leesboro, which contained a third-party guaranty of performance purportedly signed by defendants. After forensic analysis of the documents and the computers on which they allegedly were created, defendants informed the court that they had evidence that the contracts had been backdated and defendants’ signatures had been forged. The trial court agreed, dismissed the case in its entirety and ordered plaintiffs to pay $646,000 in attorney’s fees. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the trial court had authority to issue this sanction under either its inherent power to impose sanctions, or under the rules governing discovery abuses; “producing false documents in discovery and then lying about those documents in deposition undoubtedly qualifies as an abuse – flagrant, in fact – of the discovery process.” The court further held that dismissal was not excessive: “[f]abricating evidence is, in fact, one of the most egregious offenses against the integrity of the judicial system.” The court found that lesser sanctions, such as excluding the fabricated evidence, would have been ineffective, because it merely would have placed plaintiffs in the same position they were in before they fabricated the agreements. Rather, as the trial court found when it dismissed the case with prejudice and awarded fees, “justice requires that [plaintiffs] be placed in a worse position than before they filed their suit.”