In February 2022 Emily Colvin sued her father, Jay W. Colvin III, over trusts her grandparents created for their grandchildren, seeking an accounting and his removal as co-trustee, and in July 2022 the family settled through a partition agreement and a settlement agreement under which she released claims for an accounting, claims against attorneys and fiduciaries and other statutory rights, and received more than $3.7 million.¹ Jay says the settlement still required him to provide tax-return documentation for the 2022 tax year and that he complied, while Emily says she knew nothing of the trusts until late 2021, that her lawyer filed suit without conducting discovery or obtaining an accounting, and that he advised her to settle five months later.² Emily sued that lawyer for malpractice in September 2023 on an "inadequate settlement value" theory, the case was stayed for arbitration, and the arbitrator issued subpoenas to Jay for more than 40 years of real estate, company, accounting, banking and tax records, which the lawyer did not oppose.³ Jay says Emily offered no evidence in response to his declaration that compliance would cost tens of thousands of dollars, while Emily says she seeks only trust-related documents she is entitled to as beneficiary and current trustee.⁴

Emily applied to the 334th District Court of Harris County on May 30, 2025 to compel Jay to comply with the arbitrator's subpoena, Jay moved to strike it as unduly burdensome, and on October 23, 2025 the trial court (Judge Dawn Rogers) ordered him to comply.¹ The First Court of Appeals denied mandamus by per curiam order on February 26, 2026.² Jay petitioned this Court on March 16, 2026.³ The Court set the case for oral argument on September 4, 2026 and ordered merits briefing.

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus from the First Court of Appeals' denial of mandamus on an order enforcing an arbitration subpoena; argument set September 4, 2026. Oral argument: February 9, 2027.

• Jay Colvin:¹ whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion, with no adequate appellate remedy, by ordering a non-party to produce documents for a private arbitration, including 40 years of records Emily already has and tax records, without protecting him from undue burden, without any showing of relevance and materiality for a proportionality assessment and without in camera review; whether a settling party may sue a former lawyer on a theory that a multi-million-dollar settlement was inadequate without some evidence of fraud or a nominal settlement; and whether the trial court violated its ministerial duty by failing to enforce the settlement agreement.
• Emily Colvin:² whether the arbitrator, trial court and court of appeals abused their discretion in enforcing a subpoena for trust documents she is entitled to receive.

Mandamus lies only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a legal duty when no other adequate remedy exists, the relator's burden is heavy, and the scope of discovery is principally within the trial court's discretion.¹

Whether the subpoena is overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.

Jay Colvin (Relator): A court must protect a non-party from undue burden and expense, the subpoena is facially overbroad because it demands 40-plus years of records on dozens of properties and entities, much of it with no time limit, and the trial court never analyzed proportionality, relevance, or materiality to the malpractice claim, including the tax returns.¹ In reply, he says the order reaches post-settlement documents, entity records and third-party trusts, that Emily is shifting the cost of her malpractice discovery to a settled non-party, and that her "negligent discovery" theory is suspect without proof of fraud or a nominal settlement.²

Emily Colvin (Real Party in Interest): An arbitrator has broad discretion to subpoena documents and a court to enforce the subpoena, the requested documents are Emily's trust-related records as beneficiary and current trustee, not Jay's personal documents, and this is a run-of-the-mill discovery dispute with nothing novel.³ She adds that the trial court found the documents relevant and rejected Jay's evidence of undue burden.⁴

Whether the settlement agreements bar the discovery.

Jay Colvin (Relator): Texas strongly favors settlement finality, Emily released her claims for an accounting, records, discovery and claims against attorneys, and compelling the same accounting-type discovery from a released non-party violates the agreements and the trial court's ministerial duty to enforce them.⁵

Whether mandamus is available.

Jay Colvin (Relator): A non-party ordered to produce confidential financial records cannot get meaningful relief on appeal because production beyond the permissible bounds of discovery has no adequate remedy and he is not a party who can appeal.⁶ Emily responds that because there was no abuse of discretion the Court need not reach the adequacy of any remedy at law, and that Jay has shown no harm that ordinary process cannot address.⁷

Jay argued that the order is a roadmap for litigants dissatisfied with settlements to relitigate settled disputes through arbitration discovery and to impose massive burdens on non-parties without judicial gatekeeping.¹ Emily argued that there is nothing novel in the dispute and that the trial court acted within its discretion.²

None noted