GENERAL MOTORS LLC v. ALLIE MEAD (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to strike expert disclosures in a product liability action.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 475, 168 P.3d 731, 737 (2007). 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 remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, see NRS 34.170, NRS 34.330, or that the district court's order otherwise falls within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.