Succession of Robert John Shirer

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-C-440

SUCCESSION OF ROBERT JOHN SHIRER

IN RE ROBERT J. SHIRER, II
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE KIRK A.
VAUGHN, JUDGE AD HOC, DIVISION "N", No. 872-481

September 21, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED; STAY DENIED

In this succession matter, relator, Robert J. Shirer, II, seeks this Court’s supervisory
review of the trial court’s September 8, 2026 judgment which granted a Motion to Compel
filed by Patricia Shirer and William Shirer in their representative capacities as co-
executors of the Succession of Robert John Shirer. Relator specifically disputes the trial
court’s order that he produce the following documents: 1) all business and financial
records, including bank records and loan documents of The Cabinet Shoppe and/or NOLA
Caskets, from January 1, 2023 through November 16, 2025; and 2) the cost of the
decedent’s casket as evidenced by invoice from the supplier as well as proof of payment.
Relator has requested that we give this writ application expedited consideration because
the judgment orders relator to respond to the requested discovery within fifteen (15) days
of the signing of the judgment (which would be on September 23, 2026). Relator has also
requested a limited stay of said contested portions of the judgment pending resolution of
this writ application.

In his writ application, relator contends that the business and financial records were
originally sought relative to relator’s claim for reimbursement of personal funds he
allegedly advanced to the decedent in the amount of $44,787.72. However, the trial court
granted summary judgment in favor of the co-executors and denied relator’s claim for

reimbursement. As such, relator argues that the co-executors have failed to establish
another basis to produce those documents, many of which contain confidential
information. Further, though the co-executors argue that the decedent may have had a
6% ownership interest in the business, thus making the information relevant, relator
asserts this does not necessitate such a broad disclosure, especially since this claim can
be investigated through other means. As to the casket invoice, relator argues that the
acquisition cost is only material if the co-executors can prove relator agreed to furnish the
casket for free, at cost, or at a discount, and this has not yet been established.

La. C.C.P. art. 1422 states, in part, that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding
any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action ... . It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible
at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” “Relevant evidence” is defined in La. C.E. art. 401 as “evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.”

The trial court has broad discretion in regulating pre-trial discovery, and its
decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Bell v. Treasure Chest
Casino, L.L.C., 06-1538 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 654, 656.

Upon review, we conclude that relator has not shown that the contested information
and documentation sought to be disclosed is clearly not relevant and material to the issues
involved in this matter, or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Further, concerning the alleged confidential nature of such
information and documentation, relator can request that the trial court order such
information and documentation be filed under seal at the time of disclosure or other
protective measures as provided under La. C.C.P. art 1426 to prevent disclosure of
confidential information.

Therefore, on the showing made, we cannot say that the trial court clearly abused
its broad discretion in granting the Motion to Compel. This writ application is denied.
Relator’s request for a limited stay is also denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 21st day of September, 2026.

JGG
MEJ
TSM

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 09/21/2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-C-440
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Kirk A. Vaughn (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Bruce A. Miller (Respondent) Stephen P. Schott (Respondent)

MAILED
Anne Margaret Shirer Schott Robert J. Shirer, II (Relator)
(Respondent) In Proper Person
In Proper Person 2719 Varden Avenue
122 Lenz Drive Metairie, LA 70001
Seguin, TX 78155