The underlying case is a probate action over the estate of Dr. Stanley Seaton, in which the trustee, Chris Kinkaid, sued over alleged mismanagement of a trust.¹ In 2022 the defendants, Sarah Graziano (now Denny) and Doc's Drive-In Theatre, served the Department of Family and Protective Services (Adult Protective Services) with a subpoena for all documents about any APS report or investigation concerning Seaton, which they say would support a limitations defense.² The Department says it follows a state-approved records-retention policy that required keeping closed APS investigations for five years, that it fully complied with the 2022 subpoena, and that the remaining records were purged under that policy.³ The defendants say the Department never responded for years and that at least one investigation's records were purged in violation of the policy.⁴

Denny moved on August 5, 2024 to compel and to disclose confidential information under section 48.101, and at the hearing the Department said it did not oppose the motion generally but had no responsive records because they were no longer in its IMPACT system.¹ The probate judge then injected forensic examiner Craig Ball into the case on his own initiative and, in an order signed less than a month later, directed the Department to allow Ball to conduct a diligent search through the APS files and records and retrieve the entire file on Seaton, to produce records for in camera review, and to serve a detailed account of the search.² The court denied the Department's motion to reconsider on November 12, 2024, and the Third Court of Appeals denied mandamus.³ The Supreme Court heard the Department's petition and requested briefing.

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) from the Third Court of Appeals' denial of relief. Oral argument: November 4, 2026.

• The Department:¹ (1) whether the probate court abused its discretion by ordering the Department to let Ball search all of its IMPACT files, when no party requested that relief, uncontroverted evidence showed the information was purged under a retention policy, and no Weekley Homes analysis was done; and (2) whether the Department has an adequate remedy by appeal.
• Denny:² whether the trial court exceeded what the discovery rules allow; she argues it did not, and that Ball would act on the judge's behalf as part of the section 48.101 process rather than as a member of the public.

Mandamus requires an abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal, and the Department's petition also argues the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a void order.¹

Whether the order was an abuse of discretion.

The Department (Relator): The Department's investigatory information is statutorily confidential, and the judge, with no party asking, directed a private third party to have unrestricted access to IMPACT, ignoring the protections of section 48.101, the rules on subpoenas and sanctions, and controlling precedent.¹ The order violates Rules 176.2, 205 and 215, and the judge never considered the Weekley Homes factors before allowing access to a party's electronic records system; the Department says it did not default on its duty to search.² In reply, it says section 48.101's text forbids delegating the in camera review, that Weekley Homes bars fishing expeditions into confidential electronic systems, and that the judge cannot grant relief nobody requested.³

Denny and the other real parties in interest: The Department's point that the records are confidential is undisputed, which is why the defendants moved to disclose them under section 48.101, and the trial court did not order discovery beyond what the rules allow because Ball acts on behalf of the judge in the statutory process, not as a member of the public.⁴ They add that the records were purged in violation of the retention policy and that the Department's evidence on this was unreliable.⁵

The Department argued that the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a void order, that it has no adequate remedy by appeal, and that it is entitled to mandamus relief.¹ It framed the dispute as a judge, without any party asking, giving a private third party unfettered access to a statutorily confidential database to retrieve documents that had already been purged.²

None noted