With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceedings. We intend no prejudice to Raymond’s right to challenge any particular subcategory of Jeffrey’s requests for discovery. If any of the requests do not appear to be calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not tailored to the action, or reflect a fishing expedition, the orphans’ court may reject them. See generally Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1 (providing that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action” and that even requests that will produce only inadmissible evidence are permissible “if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”); Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117, 1127 (Pa.Super.2007) (<HOLDING>). We hold only that Jeffrey’s pleadings, in his

A: holding that the trial court must ensure that the requests are tailored to the specific action and that discovery requests that reflect a mere fishing expedition should not be allowed
B: holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates
C: holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party
D: holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline
A.