Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rowen SEIBEL; Moti Partners, LLC; Moti Parstners 16, LLC; LLTQ Enterprises, LLC; LLTQ Enterprises 16, LLC; TPOV Enterprises, LLC; TPOV 16 Enterprises, LLC; Ferg 16, LLC; R Squared Global Solutions, LLC, Derivatively on Behalf of DNT Acquistion, LLC; GR Burgr, LLC; and Craig Green, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Timothy C. Williams, District Judge, Respondents, Desert Palace, Inc.; Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC; PHWLV, LLC; and Boardwalk Regency Corporation, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of prohibition challenges a district court order granting in part a motion to compel the disclosure of allegedly privileged attorney-client communications and directing petitioner to turn over the communications for an in camera review. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay,1 which real parties in interest have opposed. Petitioner has filed a reply.
Whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is discretionary with this court. Leibowitz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. 119 Nev. 523, 529, 78 P.3d 515, 519 (2003). It is petitioners burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted at this time. In particular, the district court has not completed its review of the matter, determining merely that real parties in interest have demonstrated that its in camera review is warranted. Only after that review is completed may the district court compel petitioner to disclose the documents to real parties in interest. Thus, without prejudice to petitioners ability to seek writ relief in the event he is ordered to disclose the subject documents to real parties in interest, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.2
FOOTNOTES
1. Petitioner's motion to file a redacted writ petition and several volumes of the appendix under seal is granted, as the information contained therein was sealed below. SRCR 3(4)(b), 7. The clerk of this court shall file, under seal, the writ petition and volumes 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14A, 14B. 15, and 16, all of which were provisionally received in this court on June 17, 2021.
2. In light of this order, petitioner's motion for a stay is denied as moot.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 83071
Decided: June 18, 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)