MICHAEL MAYS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying in part petitioner Michael Mays’ motion to compel discovery in a criminal matter.

Having considered the petition, we conclude that Mays has failed to show that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; 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 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). In particular, we generally decline to review challenges by writ petition to discovery orders, as Mays has an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal should he be convicted. See Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678-79 (2011) (recognizing that mandamus is generally not available to challenge discovery orders—with exceptions not alleged here). Moreover, “[d]iscovery matters are within the district court's sound discretion, and we will not disturb a district court's ruling regarding discovery unless the court has clearly abused its discretion,” Club Vista Fin. Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012), which Mays has not shown. Mays’ reliance on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), also does not merit our intervention, as any Brady claim may be raised on direct appeal if Mays is convicted. Insofar as Mays argues that the petition presents an important issue meriting clarification, Mays offers a bare statement without analysis or substantive argument and thus fails to show that the petition should be entertained on that basis.

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.