WYNN LAS VEGAS LLC v. Anne E. Jagolinzer, individually; Jayden Jagolinzer, individually; L.J., a Minor by and Through Her Natural Mother and Guardian Lindsay Spalding-Steven; and Judith Jagolinzer and Tiffany Pond as Co-Special Administrators of the Estate of David A. Jagolinzer, Deceased, Real Parties in Interest. (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to disqualify an expert witness from testifying in a premises liability matter. “A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is within our discretion. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., Div. of Pub. & Behav. Health v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. 254, 255, 534 P.3d 706, 710 (2023).

We decline to intervene at this time for two reasons. First, “the decision to admit or exclude expert opinion testimony is discretionary and is not typically subject to review on a petition for a writ of mandamus.” Williams v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that an exception to that general rule applies. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating extraordinary relief is warranted). Second, petitioner may renew its disqualification motion if it appears from the expert witness’ deposition that the expert is relying solely on confidential information he learned during his employment with petitioner. Cf. Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 643, 655-56, 331 P.3d 905, 913 (2014) (reasoning in the attorney-client privilege context that “[a]llowing a former fiduciary of a corporation to access and use privileged information after he or she becomes adverse to the corporation solely based on his or her former [f]iduciary role” would have a “chilling effect on candid communications between corporate managers and counsel” (emphasis added)). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.