DOUGLAS ANSELL AS GUARDIAN FOR MINOR CHILD v. MARSHAL WILLICK AN INDIVIDUAL MARSHAL WILLICK LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WILLICK LAW GROUP MCDONALD CARANO LLP AND PAT LUNDVALL AS FORMER GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MINOR CHILD (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal denying a motion to compel in a tort action alleging privacy and negligence claims, brought by appellant as guardian of a minor child, against the attorney of appellant's former spouse, respondent Willick. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jacob A. Reynolds, Judge.

During litigation in the underlying matter, the district court appointed a guardian ad litem, respondent Lundvall, who was represented by counsel from the firm McDonald Carano, also a respondent here. The district court appointed Ms. Lundvall for the narrow purpose of determining the efficacy of a suit against Mr. Willick after he attached a medical document pertaining to the minor child to a pleading in a separate matter involving a business dispute. At the time, appellant was simultaneously engaged in divorce litigation with his former spouse. Following the recommendation of Ms. Lundvall as guardian ad litem for the minor child, the suit against Mr. Willick was dismissed. Appellant then filed a motion to compel the production of documents and materials prepared by Ms. Lundvall in her capacity as guardian ad litem. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Upon initial review of this appeal, this court issued an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it did not appear that the challenged order was appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). In the response to this court's order to show cause, appellant asserts that this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal, relying heavily upon NRAP 3A(b)(7), including the advisory committee note, to argue that the rule applies because appellant appears as guardian of a minor and a guardian ad litem was appointed, temporarily, for the minor. Appellant argues that because of these guardian relationships, this appeal involves issues pertaining to guardianship of a minor such that NRAP 3A(b)(7) applies. However, appellant fails to acknowledge the rule applies specifically to family court.

Appealability under NRAP 3A(b)(7) is reserved for family court matters. See, NRAP 3A Advisory Committee Note (2024 amendments) (“Subdivision (b)(7) clarifies appeals in family law cases.”). The underlying action at issue is not a family court matter but a civil action against an attorney in a business dispute. The order denying appellant's motion to compel is a special order after final judgment and does not affect rights of the parties as incorporated in the judgment. See NRAP 3A(b)(8); Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002). Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel the production of documents and materials, we lack jurisdiction. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). Accordingly, this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.¹

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant's requests that this appeal be construed as a petition for extraordinary relief and/or that this appeal be consolidated with the appeal in Docket No. 89664 are denied.