right to proceed with the case, and the right to defend the suit. Speer, 965 S.W.2d at 45-46. The trial court is to “consider the witness’s evidence and argument on each individual question and determine whether the privilege against self-incrimination is meritorious.” Lowe, 151 S.W.3d at 745 (quoting Speer, 965 S.W.2d at 46). Here, as in Gordon, there is no indication of how or why the trial court overruled Ferguson’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege and granted Bernal’s motion to compel. Ferguson has not provided this Court with an authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony. From the record before us, it cannot be determined whether Ferguson established to the trial court how her answers may tend to incriminate he App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion We deny the petition for writ of
holding trial court abused its discretion by assessing sanctions based on inadmissible document holding trial court abused discretion by assessing sanctions without supporting evidence holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined holding that record was inadequate to conclude that trial court abused its discretion in awarding death penalty sanctions where relator did not provide court with hearings on sanctions or motion to compel