MARIA HENDERSON v. DAVID KOTKIN DAVID COPPERFIELD (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks to compel the district court to reverse its December 13, 2023, order granting real party in interest's “motion in limine, to exclude evidence, to enforce prior order, objection to subpoenas, motion for a protective order, and for attorney fees and costs” and to prohibit the district court from issuing orders related to petitioner's husband, the parties' prior child support contract, and petitioner's ability to call her children as witnesses.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to review petitions challenging discovery orders. Club Vista Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012).

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that any of the exceptions for deviating from the above standards apply in this case, and thus, we decline to intervene. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.