Opinion
86375-COA
04-18-2023
MAGDALENA OCASIO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DAWN THRONE, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondents, and JONATHAN JORDAN WIRSZ, Real Party in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges an April 6. 2023. district court order granting a protective order and quashing proposed subpoenas in a child custody matter.
Whether to issue extraordinary writ relief is solely within this court's discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that such relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having reviewed the documents before us, we decline to intervene. The custody hearing is scheduled to take place soon, and petitioner, if aggrieved by the district court's decision on the motions to modify custody, may appeal and raise the issues set forth in the writ petition. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.'), see NRS 34,170; NRS 34.330; Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 819, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (recognizing that "[a] writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal," but rather, writ should be used sparingly, "for extraordinary causes"). Further, we are not persuaded that this matter presents an exception to the general rule against considering writ petitions challenging discovery orders. See Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678 (2011) ("[E]xtraordinary writs are generally not available to review discovery orders."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Gibbons, C.J., Bulla, J., Westbrook, J.