ANA RUANO OCHOA AN INDIVIDUAL v. DAVID TERRY AN INDIVIDUAL (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting three motions in limine and a ruling denying reconsideration of that order.

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. Trial is imminent, and we are not persuaded that this matter presents an exception to the general rule against considering writ petitions challenging pretrial evidentiary rulings. See Williams v. Eight Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 525, 262 P.3d 360, 365 (2011) (discussing writ petition challenging pretrial orders granting and denying motions in limine); 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.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner's motion for leave to file a late reply to real party in interest's response to her emergency stay motion is granted; the reply was filed on March 29, 2023. However, in light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.