OUR NEVADA JUDGES INC v. County of Washoe and Robert A. Conrad, Real Parties in Interest. (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a request for electronic coverage of civil proceedings. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ, relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 851, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and this court has the sole discretion in determining whether to grant relief). Specifically, petitioner acknowledges that there will be no hearing in the underlying case for which petitioner could provide electronic coverage, and thus, the matter is moot. See, e.g., Personhood Neu. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (stating that this court's duty is “to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment” and “not to render advisory opinions”). We are not persuaded that an exception to the mootness doctrine applies. Id. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.