In In re Mason, a trial court entered a discovery order requiring a defendant, who was an executor and trustee, to produce documents and information to the plaintiffs, his children. No. 12-24-00023-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2496 (Tex. App.—Tyler April 10, 2024, original proc.). The defendant filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging the discovery order. One issue was that the trial court held that the relevant time period for production was over twenty years. The court of appeals affirmed the order. The court could not conclude that trial court abused his discretion by compelling the production of certain documents from the date of the deceased’s death to the present date because defendant still received royalty payments, his previous response to an order for production demonstrated that he produced documents during that period, and amounts owed were calculated through during the period. The court of appeals held that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that 2002 to the present constituted a relevant time period and was therefore not unreasonably long. In the course of its opinion, the court of appeals also held as follows: “The universe of an executor’s fiduciary obligations includes a duty to exercise reasonable care in the administration of the estate property, and a duty to avoid commingling of estate funds with non-estate assets, including the executor’s personal property. Because an executor holds and manages property interests of others, he or she serves as a trustee and is held to the highest standards of conduct.” Id.