It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to sustain objections to a notice of intention to issue a subpoena when the subpoena would be issued after the deadline for discovery had passed, and it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude expert medical testimony on the issue of weakened intellect when the expert did not examine the decedent and had formed an opinion based on medical records from three months after the decedent had executed the contested will. It was not an error for the Orphans’ Court to grant a nonsuit a will contest when the attorney who had prepared the contested will testified that the decedent did not appear to be under any undue influence and the court considered the testimony credible even though the attorney had been convicted of wire fraud and obstruction of justice and had been disbarred, when the contestant’s only evidence of the decedent’s alleged weakened intellect was her own testimony that his diary entries included misspelled words and bad grammar, and when there was a lack of clear evidence of a confidential relationship between the decedent and his girlfriend who benefitted from the contested will. In re: Estate of Joseph Tecce, Deceased, 2953 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 11/18/2024) (non-precedential), aff’g 2 Fid.Rep.4th 354 (Delaware O.C. 2024).