In re Mason

• Docket Number: 12-23-00138-CV
• Decision Date: 21 July 2023
• Parties: IN RE: THOMAS FULLER MASON, RELATOR
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

IN RE: THOMAS FULLER MASON, RELATOR

No. 12-23-00138-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

July 21, 2023

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James T. Worthen Chief Justice

Relator Thomas Fuller Mason, filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent's denial of his motion for protection.^[1] We conditionally grant the writ.

Background

Walter Fuller Mason died on August 19, 2002. Relator, Walter's son, served both as executor of Walter's estate and trustee of a testamentary trust created for the benefit of Walter's wife Elizabeth Mason. T.O. Mason was Walter's father. Real Parties in Interest Maja Mason Steele and Thomas Theron Mason (collectively RPIs) are Relator's two children. When Elizabeth died on May 31 2006, the trust property was to be split into three trusts for the benefit of Relator and each RPI.

On August 6, 2020, RPIs sued Relator for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and partition of real estate and mineral interests. RPIs further requested an accounting. RPIs allege that Relator either never created their two trusts or never informed them of the trusts' creation. According to RPIs upon Walter's death, Relator "began a course of conduct to deceive and cheat his children ... of their rightful inheritance." RPIs assert various allegations against Relator, including that he (1) mischaracterized certain property as community property instead of separate property, (2) placed his interests above theirs, (3) made fraudulent representations and conveyances, (4) paid RPIs less than what their respective interests entitled them to, (5) clouded the title to their interests in certain property, (6) fraudulently represented to oil companies that he was the sole owner of Walter's oil, gas, and other mineral interests and consequently received royalty payments, and (7) fraudulently concealed certain of Walter's property that Relator assumed and claimed as his sole property. RPIs request actual and punitive damages.

On December 2, Respondent signed an order stating:

The Parties have further agreed and the Court hereby orders that Defendant Thomas Fuller Mason shall make a full accounting to the Court along with all documentation used to support that accounting for the influx and outflow of money into his hands whereby he shall account for all property both real, personal and mixed which he has ever had in his possession or under his control which he inherited from his father, Walter Fuller Mason, which accounting shall be completed and filed with this Court with copies delivered to Plaintiffs' attorneys on or before 5:00 p.m. on December 8, 2022.

In January 2023, RPIs filed a motion to show cause for failure to file an accounting as ordered. On March 23, 2023, the RPIs served Relator with a subpoena to appear before Respondent on April 3 to attend and give testimony. The subpoena commanded Relator to produce five categories of documents. Relator filed a motion for protection, which Respondent denied on May 10. Respondent ordered Relator to produce all documents requested no later than May 20.^[2]Relator filed this original proceeding on May 19, and this Court granted Relator's request for a stay of Respondent's May 10 order.^[3]

Prerequisites to Mandamus

Mandamus will issue to correct a discovery order if the order constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Daisy Mfg. Co., 17 S.W.3d 654, 658 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Id. at 840. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in mandamus. Id. The relator has the burden to establish both prerequisites to mandamus. In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 891 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2014, orig. proceeding).

A party will not have an adequate remedy by appeal: (1) when the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court's discovery error; (2) where the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial is vitiated or severely compromised by the trial court's discovery error; and (3) where the trial court disallows discovery and the missing discovery cannot be made a part of the appellate record or the trial court, after proper request, refuses to make it a part of the record. In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843. Because parties are not entitled to unlimited discovery, the trial court must impose reasonable discovery limits. In re Hyundai Motor Co., No. 12-19-00417-CV, 2020 WL 1445303, at *6 (Tex. App.-Tyler Mar. 25, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). A discovery order that compels overly broad discovery is an abuse of discretion. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Abuse of Discretion

The RPIs' subpoena commanded that Relator produce five categories of documents:

Any and all documents which relate in any way to the properties, real, personal and mixed, once owned by T.O. Mason, his father, Walter Fuller Mason and his mother, Elizabeth Ann Mason, including but not limited to all deeds, deeds of trusts [sic], and promissory notes that relate to the ownership by the above named persons;

Any and all documents regarding accounts from any financial institution of any kind located in Rusk County, Texas in which Thomas Fuller Mason has an interest, including but not limited to savings accounts and investment accounts of any nature whatsoever; Any and all documents relating to any and all oil, gas and other minerals in which he has an interest of any kind whatsoever, all division orders which he has received from any and all oil companies in which he has received oil royalties at any time in the past;

Any and all tax returns which he has filed since the death of Walter Fuller Mason for any entity i.e., Mason Estate, his personal, etc.; and

Evidence of all property taxes on real estate of any properties whatsoever kind which he has paid to any taxing authority in Rusk County, Texas or any county in the State of Texas for any entity i.e. Mason estate, his personal, etc.

Respondent ordered Relator to produce responsive documents, without limitation. Relator contends that he produced over 2,000 pages of documents and that Respondent's order compels production outside the bounds of proper discovery. Specifically, he maintains that the requests are not tailored to include only relevant matters, being overbroad as to time, scope, and subject matter.

Applicable Law

"A subpoena may not be used for discovery to an extent, in a manner, or at a time other than as provided by the rules governing discovery." TEX. R. CIV. P. 176.3(b). The party causing a subpoena's issuance "must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on the person served." TEX. R. CIV. P. 176.7. A person commanded to attend and give testimony, or to produce documents or things, at a hearing or trial, may object or move for protective order before the court at the time and place specified for compliance. TEX. R. CIV. P. 176.6(f).

It is not the burden of the responding party to tailor a reasonable discovery request for the requesting party. In re Houstonian Campus, L.L.C., 312 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Tex App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding). Rather, the requesting party has the responsibility to narrowly tailor its requests. Id. at 182. Specifically, a discovery request must show a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid the dispute's resolution and must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, provided the discovery is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a). Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. TEX. R. EVID. 401. Although "relevant to the subject matter" is broadly construed, there are limits. In re UPS Ground Freight, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 828, 832 (Tex. 2022) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). The evidence need not be admissible; it is sufficient that the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a) "Information is 'patently irrelevant' when reasonable minds would not differ that it has no tendency to prove or disprove any issue involved in the subject matter of the suit and the information's irrelevancy is apparent from the face of the record." In re Sun Coast Res., Inc., 562 S.W.3d 138, 146 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding). We evaluate relevancy on a case-by-case basis by considering, among other things, the claims as pleaded and the instrumentality of the alleged injury. Id.

A discovery request is overbroad when it encompasses time periods, activities, or subject matters that are not relevant to the...