drives. See id. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion not only by compelling production of overly broad discovery without addressing Harris’s objections and without a motion to compel discovery from Harris before it, but also by issuing its even more invasive order that Harris produce his hard drives and by failing to require Arthur to make any showing that the benefit of the discovery she sought outweighed the burden and expense to Harris. Thus, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the January 27, 2009 order compelling Harris to produce documents in response to Arthur’s requests for production and to produce his hard drives and by issuing its May 11, 2009 order denying Harris’s motion to clarify. See Alford Chevroleir-Geo, 997 S.W.2d at 181 (<HOLDING>). We sustain Harris’s first issue. C. Refusal
recognizing that trial court has broad discretion in ruling on admissibility of evidence and party claiming abuse of that discretion bears a heavy burden holding that unless discovery is granted as a matter of statute court rule or the constitution discovery is within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that although trial court has broad discretion to define scope of discovery it can abuse its discretion by acting unreasonably holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion