Opinion
No. 64614
12-31-2013
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY LIMITED; AND DUSTIN HINDMARCH, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KERRY EARLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and BERTHA E. TRIANA; HIRAMA TRIANA; AND DELORES M. CIPRIANO, Real Parties in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL AND DENYING WRIT PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion to consolidate real parties in interest's district court actions and an oral ruling denying reconsideration of the order granting consolidation.
As an initial matter, petitioners have moved to seal the writ petition and the appendix in this matter. In sealing court records, we must use the least restrictive means of sealing, and seal only as much of the record as is necessary to protect any confidential information. See SRCR 3(6). Here, we conclude that the least restrictive means is to seal only those portions of the petition and appendix that include references to confidential information. See SRCR 3(4) (identifying permissible grounds for sealing court records); see also SRCR 7 (providing that "[c]ourt records sealed in the trial court shall be sealed from public access in the Nevada Supreme Court subject to further order of that court"). Therefore, having considered the motion and reviewed the petition, and appendix, we grant the motion in part. Accordingly, the clerk of this court shall file under seal only pages 7-13 and 25-26 of the December 16, 2013, writ petition and pages 629-1227 of petitioners' appendix, which was filed in this court on that same date.
Further, having considered the writ petition and the appendix, we decline to exercise our discretion to intervene in this matter by way of extraordinary writ relief. See NRS 34.160 (explaining that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (noting that writ relief is typically not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate at law); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that it is within this court's discretion to determine whether writ relief will issue).
It is so ORDERED.
__________, J.
Gibbons
__________, J.
Douglas
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Kerry Earley, District Judge
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Eglet Wall Christiansen
Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk