BOUDREAU v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order regarding a motion to compel.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Further, “this court typically will not exercise its discretion to review a pretrial discovery order unless the order could result in irreparable prejudice, such as when the order is a blanket discovery order or an order requiring disclosure of privileged information.” Vanguard Piping v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 602, 606, 309 P.3d 1017, 1019 (2013).

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.