adequate remedy by appeal when a trial court’s order “imposes a burden on the producing party far out of proportion to any benefit that may obtain to the requesting party”). III. RelatoR’s Evidentiary Burden As an initial matter, we note that Ex-mark failed to produce any evidence supporting its objections to the discovery requests at issue on grounds of relevance or overbreadth. Exmark argues that it is “not required or necessary [to] produce evidence in support of ... objections” to discovery. The party objecting to discovery must present any evidence necessary to support its objections. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 193.4(a), 199.6. Evidence is not always required to support an objection or claim of privilege. In re Union Pacific Resources Co., 22 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex.1999) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). For example, when a request is overly broad
holding that a statute is not ex post facto when it created an alteration in rules of evidence   which served only to prevent use of certain evidence relating to the alleged victims credibility and had no bearing upon evidence relating to the crime itself holding that where there is competent evidence to support the courts findings the admission of incompetent evidence is not prejudicial recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct holding that evidence is not required to support an an assertion relating to discovery when evidence is unnecessary to decide the matter holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument