ARCHON CORPORATION v. Dan Raider, Real Party in Interest. (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order compelling disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement.

Whether a writ of mandamus or prohibition will be issued is within this court's sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). A writ of mandamus is available “to compel the performance of an act,” NRS 34.160, that the law requires “or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion,” International Game Technology, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition may be warranted when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012). Neither of these writs will issue if the petitioner has “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time in light of this court's recent amendments to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, effective March 1, 2019. See NRCP 26(b)(1). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Ron D. Parraguirre, Justice, is disqualified from participation in the decision of this matter. The Honorable Elissa F. Cadish, Justice, and the Honorable Abbi Silver, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.