Background - Shipman and the Sheltons were business partners; years later Jamie (Shelton) sued Shipman in a third-party action alleging fraud and breaches arising from prior dealings. - Jamie served discovery seeking financial and floor‑planning records; Shipman produced over 6,000 pages but some production was late and he testified his old computer "crashed" in 2012. - After deposition, Shipman’s son found backup files on Shipman’s replacement computer; those files were produced a few days later. Shipman and his counsel swore they had diligently searched and produced responsive materials. - Jamie moved to compel forensic examination of Shipman’s computer and all electronic media from 2000 to present, alleging inadequate production and possible destruction/spoliation; the trial court granted the broad forensic order with a protective protocol. - Shipman sought mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of Texas, arguing the order violated Rule 196.4, was unsupported by evidence of default, and was overly broad and disproportionate. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jamie) | Defendant's Argument (Shipman) | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether Rule 196.4 specificity was required for direct forensic access | Jamie says her discovery and motion to compel made clear she sought electronic data and relief by forensic exam; the motion cures any earlier lack of specificity | Shipman says Jamie never specifically requested ESI or direct access as Rule 196.4 requires, so court lacked authority | Court: Motion to compel can seek forensic access as a remedy; Rule 196.4 specificity does not bar relief here because Jamie’s intent was clear and Shipman was not prejudiced | | Whether evidence showed Shipman defaulted in searching/producing ESI (Weekley standard) | Jamie contends late production, equivocal deposition answers, and admitted deletions show default or inability to search and justify forensic exam | Shipman contends late production was promptly remedied, shows good‑faith supplemental production, and equivocal memory does not prove default | Court: Skepticism and late production alone are insufficient; Jamie did not meet the high Weekley burden to show default or that forensic search would recover additional relevant materials | | Scope and proportionality of the forensic order | Jamie wanted access to discover unrecovered relevant electronic records; implicit need for broad search to find backups/deleted data | Shipman argues the order was vastly overbroad (all media for 17 years, business and personal) and exceeded what was requested | Court: The trial court abused discretion — even if some relief might be warranted, the order was unreasonably broad and disproportionate to the need | | Whether spoliation warranted forensic access or adverse inference | Jamie argues the 2012 crash during related litigation and failure to preserve justify forensic access and spoliation sanctions | Shipman notes Jamie had not yet sued him in 2012 and denies deliberate spoliation; record insufficient to decide spoliation | Court: Record insufficient to find spoliation; issue not resolved and cannot justify the intrusive order on this record | ### Key Cases Cited In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2014) (mandamus appropriate when discovery order exceeds procedural rules) In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009) (forensic access to opponents' devices is highly intrusive; requesting party must show producing party defaulted in its discovery duties) * In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. 2017) (appellate courts defer to trial fact findings but review legal and mixed questions; proportionality in e‑discovery)