QUIROZ v. Sixt Rent a Car; Chad Roberts; William Sweis; Donald Voigt; Clark County; and Clark County Department of Aviation, Real Parties in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders denying motions for partial summary judgment and for sanctions. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 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 Judicial Dist. Court, 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 will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment or orders regarding discovery issues and we are not convinced that any exceptions to those general rules apply here. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (addressing denials of summary judgment motions); see also Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 679 (2011) (addressing discovery orders); Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 578, 582, 331 P.3d 876, 878 (2014) (applying the rule from Valley Health Systems to an order imposing sanctions for a discovery issue). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.