Opinion
No. 67801
05-27-2015
TONY CALABRESE, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE VALERIE ADAIR, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and M.J. DEAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; AND HMA SALES, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court's oral ruling denying a motion in limine.
Well established Nevada Supreme Court precedent dictates that writ relief is generally unavailable to review district court orders resolving discovery disputes. See Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. ___, ___, 331 P.3d 876, 878 (2014); Clark Cnty. Liquor & Gaming Licensing Bd. v. Clark, 102 Nev. 654, 659, 730 P.2d 443, 447 (1986). Exceptions to this general rule do exist, however, and Nevada's appellate courts may consider writ petitions challenging blanket discovery orders that are either issued without regard to relevance or require the disclosure of privileged information, see Las Vegas Sands, 130 Nev. at ___, 331 P.3d at 878; Clark Cnty. Liquor, 102 Nev. at 659, 730 P.2d at 447, as well as petitions presenting important issues of law in need of clarification in cases where public policy is served by the court's consideration of the petition. Las Vegas Sands, 130 Nev. at ___, 331 P.3d at 878.
Here, petitioner does not argue the discovery order at issue in this case falls under any of the exceptions to the general rule that writ petitions are not available to challenge discovery orders. Under these circumstances, we conclude petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted); see also Las Vegas Sands, 130 Nev. at ___, 331 P.3d at 878; Clark Cnty. Liquor, 102 Nev. at 659, 730 P.2d at 447. Accordingly, we deny the petition. NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge
Callister & Associates
Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk