Opinion
No. 72128
02-16-2017
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order concerning discovery and evidence.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) (noting that "[d]iscovery matters are within the district court's sound discretion, and [this court] will not disturb a district court's ruling regarding discovery unless the court has clearly abused its discretion"). We likewise are not persuaded by petitioner's argument that the district court exceeded the scope of our remand in concluding that evidence concerning the success fee agreement and procurement deal was relevant to determining quantum meruit damages. Our remand order recognized that such evidence was relevant and proper to consider in determining the reasonable value of services, so long as it was not the sole measure for the quantum meruit damages because contract price and reasonable value of services may differ. Accordingly, we
In light of this order, petitioner's motion for stay is denied.
/s/_________, J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Parraguirre
/s/_________, J.
Stiglich cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP
Morris Law Group
Pisanelli Bice, PLLC
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP/California
Eighth District Court Clerk