SCHUCHMACHER v. BH (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment and declining to strike an expert witness in a torts action. 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). We generally decline to exercise our discretion to grant writ petitions challenging orders resolving motions for summary judgment, and we are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule). Similarly, we are not convinced that any of the exceptions to the general rule against considering writ petitions challenging discovery orders apply. See Club Vista Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) (providing that writ relief may be warranted if a discovery order constitutes a “blanket discovery order” or “requires disclosure of privileged information”). We therefore,

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.