Opinion
12-24-00352-CV
01-31-2025
IN RE: REX SMITH, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Brian Hoyle Justice
Relator, Rex Smith, filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent's discovery order. We grant the writ.
Respondent is the Honorable Dan Moore, Judge of the 173rd District Court in Henderson County, Texas.
Background
Real Party in Interest Lance Smith is the son of Rex and Nancy Smith. According to Relator, he and Nancy agreed to help Lance and his wife, Real Party in Interest Chelsea Smith (the two are now in the midst of divorce), finance the purchase of a hospice business, LS and SS, Inc., d/b/a Caring Hearts Hospice (also a Real Party in Interest). Specifically, Rex states that in exchange for a 39% interest in Caring Hearts, he and Nancy agreed to provide a $175,000 down payment and closing costs in the form of a home equity loan that Chelsea and Lance would pay off directly, a $75,000 line of credit, and a personal unlimited guarantee for $150,000 on the loan used to acquire Caring Hearts. Chelsea and Lance allegedly agreed to be responsible for all debt repayment in the event of default. Rex attached a copy of the parties' agreement and alleges that the parties never entered any written amendments, supplements, or modification to this "original purchase agreement." In May 2016, Lance and Chelsea acquired Caring Hearts. Nancy died in April 2017. Rex alleges that he received distributions from Caring Hearts beginning in early 2017 through December 2020, but that in early 2021, Lance told him Chelsea would not allow Caring Hearts to continue paying Rex. According to Rex, Chelsea and Lance used Caring Hearts funds to purchase two properties that they placed in their own names. In October 2022, Apex Hospice, LLC d/b/a Enhabit Hospice purchased Caring Hearts' assets, with the execption of some excluded assets.
Because several parties share a surname, we will refer to these parties by their first names for the sake of clarity and brevity.
Rex, individually and as sole heir at law of Nancy's Estate, and derivatively on behalf of Caring Hearts, sued Chelsea, Lance, and Caring Hearts (collectively RPIs) for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by non-disclosure/omission, and violations of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. He asserted alternative claims for promissory estoppel, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. Rex requested an accounting and sought injunctive relief.
Relator also sued Apex, who is not a party to this proceeding.
On December 3, 2024, RPIs filed a motion to compel discovery. On December 11, Respondent granted the motion, ordering that Rex respond to all discovery requests within fourteen days and produce the following documents within seven days:
a) Rex Smith's tax returns and statements;
b) Any correspondence of any kind showing that Rex Smith talked about Rex Smith or Nancy Smith being owners of Caring Hearts;
c) Bank records, loan documents, or any other kind of documents showing any sign of or memorialization of any ownership interest by Rex Smith or Nancy Smith in Caring Hearts beyond the document Rex Smith titled the Original Purchase Agreement; and
d) Journals, notepads, diaries, calendars, or related documents, correspondence, or ESI relating to Caring Hearts, Chelsea Smith, or Lance Smith from 2016 to the present.
Respondent signed a nunc pro tunc order on December 17. This proceeding followed.
Because a nunc pro tunc order supersedes the original, we focus our review on the nunc pro tunc order.
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
Rex contends that Respondent abused his discretion by ordering him to produce tax returns and other documents.
Tax Returns
We first address Rex's contention that RPIs are not entitled to his personal tax returns, absent a showing that they are relevant and unavailable through less intrusive means.
"Tax returns are treated differently than other types of financial records, as evidenced by the supreme court's expressed 'reluctance to allow uncontrolled and unnecessary discovery of federal income tax returns.'" In re Beeson, 378 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (quoting Hall v. Lawlis, 907 S.W.2d 493, 494-95 (Tex. 1995)). "This is because federal income tax returns are considered private and the protection of that privacy is of constitutional importance." Id. Sacrificing such privacy "should be 'kept to the minimum, and this requires scrupulous limitation of discovery to information furthering justice between the parties which, in turn, can only be information of relevancy and materiality to the matters in controversy.'" Id. (quoting Maresca v. Marks, 362 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. 1962)). Consequently, when a resisting party objects to the production of tax returns, the burden shifts to the party seeking to obtain the documents to show that the returns are relevant and material to the issues in the case. Id. "Tax returns are not material if the requesting party can obtain the same information from another source." Id.
In his production requests to Rex, Lance's Request 1 sought, "Your Tax Returns for the period 2016 through 2023. This request includes both your federal and, if applicable, state income tax returns and any attachments thereto." Rex objected as follows:
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request for his Tax Returns for the period 2016 through 2023 as the request is not reasonably calculated to result in the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants concerning their breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraudulent transfer, accounting, and remedies including injunctive relief and constructive trust as well as Defendants' affirmative defenses to these claims, have nothing to do with Plaintiff's taxes or the information that can be gleaned therefrom (unlike the Non-Apex Defendants). Plaintiff's financial information concerning what he provided to Chelsea and Lance Smith to satisfy his obligations under the Original Purchase Agreement or received from Caring Hearts because of his 39% ownership interest in Caring Hearts has been or is being provided from less intrusive sources (See, e.g., Original Purchase Agreement, relevant bank records, relevant loan documents). As such, the request is also impermissibly harassing and an attempt to invade his privacy.
Plaintiff stands on his objections.
In their motion to compel, RPIs argued that tax returns "are crucial to a full understanding of the case at both the full-merits stage and in any discussion of a temporary injunction," are nonprivileged, relevant, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. They further maintain that (1) the "information contained in the documents would either directly or indirectly show whether Rex and/or Nancy Smith believed that they were owners of Caring Hearts after May 13, 2016, which is when Rex Smith purports the parties agreed to Rex Smith and Nancy Smith having some ownership of Caring Hearts," (2) said "belief is crucial in this case because it is evidence of whether Rex Smith intended and did agree to modify, supersede, or revoke the written agreement upon which he bases his entire case," and (3) tax returns are likely the only way to determine this "important fact." According to RPIs, the "requests are also reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the items sought may reveal crucial details about what Rex believed and believes his interest in Caring Hearts actually is, if any, and would be items representing Rex's own words, ideas, and impressions, which make them both relevant and likely admissible." Rex responded that Lance "failed to meet his burdens to plead and establish that his request for more than eight years of Rex's personal income tax filings were relevant, material, and are not duplicative of other documents produced." He maintained that Lance failed to show the tax returns are relevant and material.
At a hearing on the motion to compel, RPIs' counsel explained, "We're trying to get tax returns to see if he's ever reported to the IRS that he's an owner." Counsel sought Rex's "tax returns, journals, diaries, et cetera, any applications he's made for credit to see if he's disclosed to anybody else other than this Court that he thinks he has this ownership interest[.]" Rex's counsel responded that RPIs sought tax returns "without providing the necessary evidence to establish relevance and materiality[.]" Counsel argued as follows:
...[Rex's] sources of income are not at issue. Remember, the only thing that shows up in a tax return is your income and then anything that you basically are trying to take out of it, assuming you go above and beyond whatever your exemptions are, but his income - Rex's income is not at issue. If they want to know if there was an oral agreement, okay, about -- that -- that abandoned his written contract. They could have asked him that in an interrogatory, which is why it's not material..
.In this instance for an individual, it's going to basically include his income. Whether or not he had an agreement, they can ask him about it, but that doesn't - there's nothing else that's going to indicate that he -- that he has an agreement; otherwise, I mean, it doesn't matter how anything is labeled in his tax return, how his accountant treated it, how Caring Hearts' same information is treated. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not he has an agreement, and they can ask him those questions. They can send him an interrogatory. Do you have any agreements that modified, altered, et cetera? .that's the standard for materiality. It is an abuse of discretion to order these tax records for my client without them establishing both relevance and materiality[.] .As it relates to credibility, well, credibility can be tested any number of ways, but it's not a basis by itself to meet relevance or materiality or to violate his constitutional privacy right which has been recognized by the Tyler court and several federal courts.
RPIs counsel responded that if Rex "is an owner of an entity, he's going to get a K-1 or he's going to get something that shows that ownership, and he's going to have to report that whether there's income or not. There might be a loss. There may be income; there may not be, but you're going to report that. That's going to the IRS." Counsel maintained that RPIs may test Rex's credibility "by getting other documents, and some of those documents are what we've asked for." Rex's counsel argued that he provided documents from Caring Hearts, i.e., 1099s, which "would provide the responsive information they're discussing or concerned about, about how it was reported. It would be reported exactly how it was provided to us, which is the 1099s. That indicates that it's a less-intrusive means[.]" Counsel contended that:
.. .They haven't indicated in their motion anywhere, one, that these tax returns are going to be relevant. In fact, they haven't discussed the standard at all, and they certainly haven't addressed in any way, shape, or form how this information they want can't come from an interrogatory, a deposition, that kind of thing. They cannot try to go first with the tax returns in order to address it. They may not like what his testimony is. In fact, he's already got an affidavit on file in response to this denying there were any oral agreements or there were any modifications whatsoever. So it becomes a credibility issue, and that's something that a federal tax return, which only indicates what he received as income, not whether or not he has agreements, okay, that's something that the Court will have to determine his credibility when they hear the testimony between the parties. Federal tax returns . . . cannot be used to try to test the credibility because that indicates that the information is available by way of other means on its face.
Once Rex challenged production of the tax returns, the burden shifted to RPIs to show that the returns are relevant and unavailable through other, less intrusive means. See In re Mason, No. 12-23-00138-CV, 2023 WL 4680849, at *4 (Tex. App.-Tyler July 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Holman, No. 12-21-00145-CV, 2021 WL 5237945, at *5 (Tex. App.-Tyler Nov. 10, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). According to RPIs, Rex's tax returns "would contain unique information as to Rex's alleged ownership interest in Caring Hearts that has not been shown through any other source to date." They explain that
.tax returns will reflect information on income specifically marked as dividends or ownership-derived distributions from Caring Hearts, if any, made at a time contemporaneous with the initial receiving of that money. That information would only otherwise be reviewable from IRS forms like the 1099-DIV, but neither party has seen or produced any 1099-DIV or similar forms showing business ownership-related income for Rex in this matter, so the only alternative for obtaining that information would be a review of Rex's federal tax returns. Because that information is apparently unique to Rex's tax returns and would provide circumstantial evidence about whether any subsequent agreement was reached regarding Rex and Nancy's alleged ownership interest from the so-called Original Purchase Agreement, Rex's tax returns are material, relevant, and contain information that is not obtainable from another source.
RPIs posit that the tax returns will show Rex's belief as to whether he and Nancy were owners of Caring Hearts. According to RPIs, Rex would have to report any income from Caring Hearts and tax returns would reflect a dividend or ownership distribution. They maintain that "Rex and Nancy's actions and omissions related to the tax returns and payments from Caring Hearts are circumstantial evidence of their beliefs-their subjective view-about the relevant alleged oral agreement between the parties that goes to the heart of whether there was a meeting of the minds on that agreement." Because they are producing their own tax returns, RPIs assert that "[p]rinciples of equity dictate that what is useful for one party in a lawsuit is useful for the other as well when both parties must argue about all parties' claims and defenses, so if the Parties in Interest must supply tax records, then so should Rex."
We disagree with the concept that Rex must produce his tax returns simply because RPIs are producing their returns. To be subject to production, tax returns must be both relevant and material. See Hall, 907 S.W.2d at 494; see also In re Long, No. 06-20-00039-CV, 2020 WL 5028779, at *5 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Aug. 25, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Beeson, 378 S.W.3d at 12. Assuming the returns are relevant, RPIs failed to demonstrate that the returns are material, i.e., not available through other channels. See Mason, 2023 WL 4680849, at *5; see also Holman, 2021 WL 5237945, at *6; In re Sullivan, 214 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Tex. App.- Austin [3rd Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (State not entitled to production of tax returns where it "did not attempt to use (or explain why it could not use) interrogatories, depositions, or any other discovery device to follow-up its initial discovery request or further explore the bases for Sullivan's calculations"); see generally Sears, Roebuck &Co. v. Ramirez, 824 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (trial court abused discretion by ordering production of tax returns when relator previously produced annual reports and there was no justification for requiring the production of the same information in different form). RPIs do not explain why other documents or discovery requests, such as an interrogatory or deposition, would be insufficient sources of the information they seek. See Mason, 2023 WL 4680849, at *5; see also Holman, 2021 WL 5237945, at *6; Long, 2020 WL 5028779, at *6 (party seeking tax returns failed to explain whether "backup documentation ordered could reveal information sought from the tax returns" or why she could not use interrogatories, depositions, or other discovery device to obtain information); Sullivan, 214 S.W.3d at 625. "[M]erely stating a belief that the information cannot be obtained elsewhere is [not] enough to satisfy [the] burden of demonstrating that production of ... federal income tax returns is ... material." In re Bullin, No. 10-15-00423-CV, 2016 WL 934010, at *4 (Tex. App.-Waco Mar. 10, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). And to the extent RPIs are concerned with Rex's credibility, "a party's distrust, without more, is not sufficient to support compelling the production of tax returns containing information already provided or available in other forms." Beeson, 378 S.W.3d at 15; see Long, 2020 WL 5028779, at *6.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that RPIs failed to demonstrate the materiality of Rex's tax returns. Thus, Respondent abused his discretion by compelling production of the tax returns.
Other Documents
Rex complains that Chelsea's production Request 2 is unlimited as to scope and overbroad on its face. Request 2, along with Rex's objection, states the following:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2. Any journals, notepads, diaries, calendars, or related documents, correspondence, or ESI relating to Caring Hearts, Chelsea Smith, or Lance Smith from the period of 2016 through the present.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request for production because it is facially overly broad. Specifically, the request demands the production of numerous categories of hard documents and ESI that are in any way related to any of the Non-Apex Defendants for an eight-year period without any limitation of the scope of these documents to a specific issue concerning Plaintiff's factual or legal allegations or any of the Defendants' affirmative defenses. Without a limitation on the scope of the requested documents, Plaintiff cannot begin to determine what it is that Defendant is requesting.
Plaintiff stands on his objections.
The trial court ordered that Rex produce "[j]ournals, notepads, diaries, calendars, or related documents, correspondence, or ESI relating to Caring Hearts, Chelsea Smith, or Lance Smith from 2016 to the present."
A discovery request is overbroad when it encompasses subject matters that are not relevant to the case in which the discovery is sought. See In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 226 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Such requests are overly broad as a matter of law. United Fire Lloyds, 578 S.W.3d 572, 580 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2019, orig. proceeding).
The claims at issue in this case are breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by nondisclosure/omission, and violations of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, as well as alternative claims for promissory estoppel, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. These claims include a multitude of allegations: (1) in exchange for a 39% interest in Caring Hearts, Rex and Nancy assisted with financing to acquire Caring Hearts; (2) Lance and Chelsea failed to pay all mounts due, including 39% of the distributions Caring Hearts paid to Chelsea in 2021 ($195,000.00) and 2022 ($392,096.25) and the distribution of proceeds from the asset sale and assets excluded from the sale; (3) Lance and Chelsea failed to provide Rex with copies of his stock or shares for his 39% interest or to include his ownership among corporate documents; (4) as Nancy's surviving spouse, and per the "original purchase agreement," Rex owns and is a 39% shareholder of Caring Hearts, and (5) Lance and Chelsea intentionally concealed material facts, i.e., the asset purchase agreement, which prevented Rex from contacting Apex and protecting his interest. Rex alleges that Lance and Chelsea breached fiduciary duties to Rex by
(a) failing to provide truthful and accurate information to him about his investment, including but not limited to, an accounting relating to the performance of Caring Hearts; (b) failing to pay distributions to him from January, 2021 through the sale of Caring Hearts; (c) failing to disclose to him that they used Caring Hearts' funds to acquire the Rental Properties in their own individual names; (d) failing to disclose that they individually collected rent from Caring Hearts for both of the Rental Properties; (e) failing to disclose that they continue to collect rent from the Rental Properties even after the sale of Caring Hearts' assets; (f) failing to timely and completely inform him that an agreement to sell all of Caring Hearts' meaningful assets to Apex was going to, and did, occur effective October 1, 2022; and (g) causing Caring Hearts to distribute to themselves all of the proceeds from the sale of Caring Hearts' assets as well as its property that was exempt from the sale, and fleeing the State of Texas with those proceeds and property without regard to Rex's ownership interest in Caring Hearts.
He further alleges that Lance and Chelsea breached fiduciary duties to Caring Hearts by
(a) misappropriating Caring Hearts' funds or assets to acquire the Rental Properties in their own individual names without giving consideration to Caring Hearts; (b) then causing Caring Hearts to pay rent to C. Smith and L. Smith individually for both of the Rental Properties; (c) continuing to collect rent from the Rental Properties from Apex as a result of an assignment of the commercial leases after Apex acquired Caring Hearts' assets; (d) conspiring to conceal the Original Purchase Agreement and Rex's 39% ownership interest to Apex before executing the Asset Purchase Agreement; (e) conspiring to conceal Apex's Asset Purchase Agreement from Rex; and (f) conspiring to cause Caring Hearts to distribute to C. Smith and/or L. Smith all or a substantial portion of the proceeds Apex paid Caring Hearts in violation of Caring Hearts certificate of formation, in excess of any distribution limitation, or rendering Caring Hearts insolvent after the distribution.
Rex maintains that Lance and Chelsea fraudulently concealed these breaches, fled Texas with proceeds and property, refused to preserve 39% of the proceeds from the asset sale and exempt property, left Caring Hearts with no assets or ability to conduct business, "possess[ed] and squander[ed]" proceeds from the asset sale, and undermined Rex's and Caring Hearts' ability to recover the proceeds. Rex sought equitable disgorgement of distributions, injunctive relief preventing Lance and Chelsea from receiving or spending proceeds from the asset sale, an accounting of proceeds and exclusions from the asset sale, and an order requiring that they deposit 39% of the sale proceeds in the court registry. He sought a constructive trust over certain rental properties and proceeds (1) from rent; (2) traced to the asset sale; (3) traced to Caring Hearts' personal property, assets, or proceeds that were excluded from the asset sale; and (4) funds received from or due and owing from Apex as a holdover from the asset purchase. Rex alleges that RPIs violated the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act based on (1) 2021 and 2022 distributions to themselves and to Rex's exclusion, (2) rental property transfers by which they profited from self-dealing, having received rent payments from Caring Hearts and Apex, and (3) asset transfers to Apex. Rex maintains that these transfers were made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Rex, and he seeks to pierce Caring Hearts' corporate veil. RPIs asserted affirmative defenses of laches, waiver, unclean hands, the payment doctrine, conditions precedent, estoppel, accord and satisfaction, failure of consideration, and illegal agreement.
RPIs assert that Request 2 is "narrowly tailored to only draw in documents, correspondence, and ESI related to Caring Hearts, Chelsea Smith, or Lance Smith." But Request 2, as it pertains to Chelsea and Lance in particular, is not tailored to the claims or factual circumstances of the case. It seeks the production of any journals, notepads, diaries, calendars, or related documents, correspondence, or ESI relating to Caring Hearts, Chelsea, or Lance without regard to subject matter. The lawsuit centers on Lance's and Nancy's acquisition of Caring Hearts and the agreement, if any, they had with Rex and Nancy, as well as their subsequent actions in paying or not paying distributions and selling Caring Hearts' assets to Apex. Request 2 exceeds the pertinent subject matter by including documents that are in no way related to any agreement between the parties regarding Caring Hearts, any financial assistance provided by Rex and Nancy, the acquisition of Caring Hearts by Lance and Chelsea, and the sale of Caring Hearts to Apex, as well as Lance's and Chelsea's conduct related to these activities. Thus, the request impermissibly encompasses information wholly unrelated to the pertinent issues in the case. Because Request 2 could have been more narrowly tailored as to subject matter, it is overbroad as a matter of law. See In re Volt Power, LLC, No. 12-23-00047-CV, 2023 WL 2804430, at *9 (Tex. App.-Tyler Apr. 5, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Rex does not appear to challenge the time period at issue - 2016 to the present. We note that Lance and Chelsea acquired Caring Hearts in 2016, Apex acquired Caring Hearts in 2022, Lance's and Chelsea's conduct occurring after 2022 is in question, and Rex filed suit in August 2024.
Disposition
Having concluded that Respondent abused his discretion by granting RPIs' motion to compel, we conditionally grant Rex's petition for writ of mandamus. We direct Respondent to vacate that portion of his December 18, 2024, nunc pro tunc order granting RPIs' first motion to compel as to (1) Rex's tax returns and statements (Lance's Production Request 1), and (2) journals, notepads, diaries, calendars, or related documents, correspondence, or ESI relating to Caring Hearts, Chelsea Smith, or Lance Smith from the period of 2016 through the present (Chelsea's Production Request 2), and in its stead, to issue an order imposing limits on Request 2 and compelling Rex to respond to that request as limited. We trust Respondent will promptly comply with this opinion and order. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so within ten days of the date of this opinion and order. The trial court shall furnish this Court, within the time of compliance with this Court's opinion and order, a certified copy of the order evidencing such compliance. We lift our stays of December 18 and 19, 2024.
ORDER
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Rex Smith; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-24-00352-CV and the plaintiff in trial court cause number CV24-0407-392, pending on the docket of the 173rd Judicial District Court of Henderson County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on December 17, 2024, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, conditionally granted.
And because it is further the opinion of this Court that the trial judge will act promptly to (1) vacate his December 18, 2024, nunc pro tunc order granting RPIs' first motion to compel as to Rex's tax returns and statements (Lance Smith's Production Request 1), and journals, notepads, diaries, calendars, or related documents, correspondence, or ESI relating to Caring Hearts, Chelsea Smith, or Lance Smith from the period of 2016 through the present (Chelsea Smith's Production Request 2), and (2) issue an order imposing limits on Request 2 and compelling Rex Smith to respond to that request as limited; the writ will not issue unless the HONORABLE DAN MOORE fails to comply with this Court's order within ten (10) days from the date of this order.