ELEVEN INC v. BRANDON MARTIN TARA TEEGARDEN ESTATE OF THOMAS MARTIN FUELS MANAGEMENT IV LLC THOMAS PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC AND SANDRA TINGLOFF (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original writ petition challenges a district court order adopting and affirming a special master's report and recommendation compelling the production of documents in a civil action.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Writ relief is typically not afforded to review discovery orders “unless the challenged discovery order is one that is likely to cause irreparable harm, such as a blanket discovery order, issued without regard to the relevance of the information sought, or an order that requires disclosure of privileged information.” Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) (stating that discovery matters are within the district court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless the court clearly abused its discretion). The order challenged here does not fall within these exceptions. In particular, the special master considered relevance and proportionality as required under the plain meaning of NRCP 26(b)(1), which is evident based on the limitations placed on several of the discovery requests. The adopted recommendation also places a protective order on several of the document requests being contested. Thus, petitioner has not satisfied its burden to demonstrate the manifest abuse of discretion or clear legal right to the relief sought that is required for extraordinary writ relief. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680-81, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-97 (2020). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We lift the stay imposed by our January 5, 2026, order.