This article was updated on Jan. 6, 2026 with information about sanctions imposed.
A civil district judge in Texas took aim last month at the Assemblies of God for repeatedly failing to produce documents in a sexual abuse lawsuit filed against the denomination in Houston last year.
Past logo for South Texas Assemblies of God via Facebook / Insert of Chi Alpha logo
The lawsuit was brought by two plaintiffs who claim they suffered sexual abuse at the hands of Daniel Savala, a registered sex offender who was given access to students involved in the South Texas Chi Alpha college ministry of the Assemblies of God.
District Judge Lauren Reeder heard motions related to the failure of the General Council of the Assemblies of God and the South Texas Ministry Network to comply with discovery requests.
Discovery is the pre-trial process for parties to gather evidence, including documents, from the other party in preparation for trial.
According to a court transcript from a hearing held on August 11, the court had issued orders last year to compel the Assemblies of God to produce documents, but it had failed to comply.
Attorneys for the General Council said the denomination had served an amended response with documents that day, but the plaintiffs’ attorney Anjali Nigam pointed out they were produced just minutes before the hearing.
According to court filings, the plaintiff first sent discovery requests to the defendant Assemblies of God in April 2024 after initially filing the lawsuit. Months followed during which the defendant did not produce documents. On August 27, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of relevant documents and then a hearing was set for November 11, 2024.
On the day before the motion was to be heard, the Assemblies of God General Council produced some documents. The judge ordered Assemblies of God to produce the rest of the documents by December 3.
Again on February 3, 2025, the court heard a motion to enforce its previous order and threatened civil and criminal contempt for failure to comply with the order. On February 6, the General Council produced some additional documents.
Months later, in June 2025, the court again heard a motion about the lack of production during which the defendant admitted it was “not in full compliance” with the November court order.
In August 2025, the court held another hearing about discovery. The General Council produced some documents that day, but its lawyer John Sullivan testified that the denomination had still not fully complied with the court’s November order.
Sullivan attempted to explain the lack of production. He said the General Council had been “attempting to settle this case in good faith and mediation twice. And had not undertaken the complete expense of the incredibly broad request for production that were — that were made by the plaintiffs.”
“It doesn’t seem like Assemblies of God cares that this Court issued an order in mid-November,” Nigam argued to the court. “I’ve gone through every single step, begged and begged. And this Court has warned and warned of the risks. And even today their representative sits there on the stand and admits that it was a choice they made. And, also, they still haven’t produced all the responsive documents.”
Access to MinistryWatch content is free. However, we hope you will support our work with your prayers and financial gifts. To make a donation, click here.
Reeder told the defendant, “[Y]ou don’t get to just decide when to start engaging in the discovery process, just because you hope to settle a case. I was going to say early, but at this point it’s not even early. It’s been pending for over a year.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney is seeking sanctions against the Assemblies of God General Council, including a jury instruction that would allow the jury to infer that the General Council knew that Savala was a sexual predator and did nothing to stop or warn plaintiffs from being sent to him and that it benefitted from the sex trafficking of the plaintiffs.
She also asked for $57,200 in attorneys’ fees for the additional work due to the failure of the General Council to comply with the discovery requests.
Both parties have filed briefs regarding the requested sanctions.
The plaintiffs argue that because the General Council ignored the lesser sanctions threatened by the court and engaged in “abuse” of the discovery process, it should be subject to greater sanctions, including the jury inference instructions.
“Plaintiffs ask for these instructions as they directly address facts in the hidden documents. For example, Defendant The General Council of the Assemblies of God admits to failing to produce responsive documents regarding investigations, documents referencing Daniel Savala, and a single financial document.”
In response to the plaintiffs’ request, the General Council argued, “The requested instructions serve to relieve Plaintiffs of their burden as to the causes of action asserted and guarantee a jury verdict finding liability.”
They also note that although warned, the court has not ordered any lesser sanctions nor unequivocally warned the General Assembly that “death penalty” sanctions—extreme penalties for abuse of the discovery process—would be imposed.
“As such, the granting of Plaintiffs’ ‘jury instructions’ request at this time would be, according to Texas law, arbitrary, unreasonable, and excessive, in addition to violating GCAG’s due process rights,” the General Council argued.
The court has not yet issued a decision about the discovery sanctions.
Update: On December 17, 2025, Harris County District Court Judge Lauren Reeder ordered the South Texas District Council of the Assemblies of God to pay $86,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs and to pay $100,000 in monetary sanctions for discovery abuse.
MAIN PHOTO: Past logo for South Texas Assemblies of God via Facebook / Insert of Chi Alpha logo