RYAN STOJACK v. DATE OF BIRTH 12 24 2009 AND DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Ryan Stojack filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the denial of a motion requesting disclosure of his minor child's therapy records.

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. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). “Where a district court is entrusted with discretion on an issue, the petitioner's burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action by that court is substantial; we can issue traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.” Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (emphasis omitted).

Based on our review of the writ petition and the documents before us, we conclude Stojack has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id.; see also Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) (stating the general policy against considering writ petitions challenging discovery decisions). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1).

It is so ORDERED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.