Pamela Bosco has lived on a 14-acre homestead in the Kirby Springs Ranch development since 2011, next door to James and Carolyn Bierschwale, who have owned their 7-acre property since 1999.¹ In 2020 the Bierschwales complained to the homeowners' association about Bosco's property, the association settled with Bosco by requiring her to remove certain animals and relocate structures, and Bosco says she complied.² The Bierschwales still sued, alleging deed-restriction violations including keeping excessive and prohibited animals, building structures within setbacks, and maintaining nuisances through animals, smells, and noise.³

The Bierschwales sought written discovery and a Rule 196.7 request to video, photograph, measure and inspect structures, equipment, livestock, and animals throughout Bosco's homestead; Bosco objected, and after a hearing the Hays County Court at Law No. 1 ordered an inspection.¹ On reconsideration the court narrowed the order but still let the Bierschwales, their attorney and one representative enter, photograph and video the property, required Bosco to remove animals from residences and unlock outbuildings, and subjected her to video and audio recording to ensure compliance.² The Third Court of Appeals denied mandamus and a stay in an opinion by Justice Crump on April 3, 2025 and denied rehearing.³ The Supreme Court requested merits briefing.

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the Third Court of Appeals (Austin) denied relief. Argued September 16, 2026.

• Bosco:¹ (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting a multi-hour inspection of her homestead, including videoing inside and outside structures, without evidence of need and when less intrusive sources exist; and (2) whether an appellate court's inability to remedy the order later leaves her without an adequate remedy.
• The Bierschwales:² (1) whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in a limited and reasonable inspection of portions of the property, primarily raw land and open-air animal shelters; and (2) whether Bosco established that she has no adequate remedy by appeal.

An order permitting discovery beyond the rules is a clear abuse of discretion, a trial court has no discretion in determining the law, and intrusive discovery requires balancing the benefits against the burden on the responding party.¹

Whether the inspection order was an abuse of discretion.

Bosco (Relator): The Bierschwales offered no evidence supporting inspection, Rule 196.7 must be read with the limits of Rules 192.3 and the intrusive-discovery balancing in Shipman and State Farm Lloyds, and courts of appeals have found abuse of discretion in similar orders, so a heightened showing beyond relevance is required.¹ In reply, she says the court could not order inspection of her homestead because the Bierschwales did not meet Rule 196.7's requirements and the court could balance burdens only against inspection benefits.²

The Bierschwales (Real Parties in Interest): The trial court properly exercised its discretion: Rule 196.7 has no heightened requirements, the record contained evidence including a detailed summary-judgment motion and response, the court tailored the order to the alleged violations and Bosco's privacy, and her claim of burden is conclusory.³ Homestead protections do not immunize property from deed-restriction compliance, and inspection is routine when a property's use is in dispute.⁴

Whether mandamus is available.

Bosco (Relator): The inability of an appellate court to later undo an inspection that lets others access and film her homestead deprives her of an adequate remedy.⁵

The Bierschwales (Real Parties in Interest): They argue Bosco did not establish that she lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.⁶

Bosco asked the Court to address the standards for a Rule 196.7 inspection order, which this Court has not addressed, and to correct an order that gives opposing parties access to and filming of a homestead.¹ The Bierschwales argued the order is limited and reasonable and that Bosco's description of it as a "multi-hour intrusive filming" is hyperbole.²

• What order would be appropriate? Asked what inspection order would be appropriate, Bosco's counsel said he did not think there is one, and that the request itself must first show a basis. (Oral Argument, 1:02:26)
• When benefits outweigh burdens. Asked when benefits outweigh burdens, counsel pointed to pipeline cases where testimony from both sides showed testing was the only way to get the information. (Oral Argument, 1:03:29)
• Undisputed facts. Counsel said it is undisputed there is a building in the setback and none on the back third of the property, so measurements could come from interrogatories instead. (Oral Argument, 1:04:16)
• A model for intrusive discovery. Asked whether electronic-discovery and apex-deposition protections are the right model, counsel said yes, intrusive discovery needs special protections. (Oral Argument, 1:08:25)
• The outbuildings. Asked about animal shelters, counsel said all of it is her home and personal property, and the buildings hold expensive items unrelated to the animals. (Oral Argument, 1:09:40)
• A middle ground. Counsel said the Bierschwales should say what measurements they want, and agreed that an interrogatory asking building distances would be a sensible place to start. (Oral Argument, 1:12:49; 1:13:36)
• Proportionality. Asked how inspection is proportional when the setback facts are conceded, the Bierschwales' counsel said what Bosco conceded is that previous buildings were removed. (Oral Argument, 1:17:36)
• A fishing expedition? Asked why inspection absent alleged non-compliance is not a fishing expedition, the Bierschwales' counsel said they have alleged setback and animal violations and want to verify compliance. (Oral Argument, 1:19:58)

None noted