FLIP TAG LLC v. Gerardo Rodriguez, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order requiring petitioner to produce unredacted prior and subsequent incident reports during discovery in a tort action.

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 Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having reviewed the record of the proceedings below provided to this court by petitioner, as well as the arguments presented in the petition for a writ of mandamus, real party in interest's answer, and petitioner's reply thereto, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted, and we deny the petition.¹ See NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.

It is so ORDERED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although we deny the petition, we note that this court recently set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors concerning whether good cause exists to enter a protective order. See Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 26,––– P.3d ––––,––––(Ct. App. 2020).

2.   The Honorable Bonnie A. Bulla, Judge, voluntarily recused herself from participation in the decision of this matter. In her place, the Honorable Michael L. Douglas, Senior Justice, was appointed to participate in the decision of this matter under an order of assignment entered on February 13, 2020. Nev. Const., art. 6, § 19(1)(c); SCR 10. We now withdraw that order, as Senior Justice Douglas did not participate in the decision due to a subsequent unavailability. Finally, in light of our disposition of this matter, we vacate the stay of the August 21, 2019, order at issue here entered by our December 4, 2019, order.