Background
Adelide Ybarra and Leon Barba are parties to a probate proceeding involving competing purported wills of Juan Rosales Perez. After abandoning an earlier request to probate a purported 2018 will and unsuccessfully pursuing a purported 2012 will, Ybarra filed a new application on February 11, 2026, seeking to probate the 2018 will. Six days later, the probate court signed a docket-control order that imposed a February 1 deadline for amended pleadings. The court subsequently struck the February 11 application as untimely and denied leave to file it.
Ybarra and Barba also sought to depose Dr. Keith Klein, a California physician retained to offer opinions about the decedent’s mental capacity when he executed a purported 2022 will. The probate court quashed a remotely noticed deposition and entered a protective order because Klein lacked a Texas medical license. After the relators noticed an in-person deposition, the court sanctioned their attorney $1,800. The relators sought mandamus relief from the pleading, discovery, and sanctions rulings and asserted a due-process challenge concerning the court’s requirement that trial testimony be presented live and in person.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the probate court to vacate its order striking the February 11 pleading. When the pleading was electronically tendered, no court-ordered pleading deadline applied, and the deadline in the later-signed docket-control order could not be imposed retroactively. Nor was the February 1 deadline independently enforceable as a party agreement because the record contained no agreement satisfying Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Because vacating the strike order would restore the pleading to the record, the court did not decide whether denying leave to file was also an abuse of discretion.
The court also directed the probate court to allow Klein’s deposition. No identified authority required a medical expert to hold a Texas license to testify about testamentary capacity in a Texas will contest, and in any event, the undisputed discoverability of Klein’s testimony did not depend on whether it ultimately would be admissible at trial. The protective and sanctions orders effectively prevented the deposition, and an appeal was inadequate because the excluded testimony would not be available in the appellate record.
The court did not reach the relators’ due-process complaint that the probate court sua sponte required all trial testimony to be given live and in person. The relators did not timely present that constitutional objection to the probate court. The mandamus petition was therefore conditionally granted in part and denied in part.
Key Takeaways
- A docket-control order cannot retroactively make untimely a pleading that complied with all applicable deadlines when filed.
- A court may not prohibit a deposition of an expert offering discoverable testimony merely because it believes the testimony will be inadmissible at trial.
- A constitutional complaint raised in a mandamus proceeding generally must first have been timely and specifically presented to the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that trial courts cannot use subsequently entered scheduling orders to invalidate filings that were proper when made. It also distinguishes the broad scope of discovery from the separate question of trial admissibility, particularly where excluding a deposition would prevent an appellate court from evaluating the resulting harm.
For probate litigants, the opinion also clarifies that the Texas medical-licensure requirements applicable in certain guardianship proceedings do not, without supporting authority, supply a basis for barring discovery from an out-of-state physician in a will contest.