Front Sight Mgmt. Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Las Vegas Dev. Fund Llc)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: January 23, 2020
• Docket: 80242
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FRONT SIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC, A No. 80242 NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JAN 2 3 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; A. SROWN CLE OFAi}bME cou AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. 1. BY WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, EPUiY a.ERK

Respondents, and LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT FUND LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; EB5 IMPACT CAPITAL REGIONAL CENTER LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; EB5 IMPACT ADVISORS LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; ROBERT W. DZIUBLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF LAS VEGAS •DEVELOPMENT FUND LLC AND EB5 IMPACT ADVISORS LLC; JON FLEMING, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN AGENT OF LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT FUND LLC AND EB5 IMPACT ADVISORS LLC; AND LINDA STANWOOD, INDWIDUALLY AND AS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT FUND LLC AND EB5 IMPACT ADVISORS LLC, Real Parties in Interest.

• ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges district court orders resolving motions to quash subpoenas.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(CA I947A 20-t23vr3 Mt MEP Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted.' See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Hetter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 110 Nev. 513, 515, 874 P.2d 762, 763 (1994) (reiterating general rule that "extraordinary writs are not available to review discovery orders" with exception of need to prevent "improper discovery in two situations where disclosure would cause irreparable injury: (1) blanket discovery orders without regard to relevance and (2) discovery orders requiring disclosure of privileged information"); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this coure). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

, C.J.

, Sr.J. Douglas

'Because we decline to entertain the petition, we deny the motion for stay filed on December 20, 2019, as moot.

2 The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 19474

1•61111 „ cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. Matthew B. Beckstead C. Keith Greer Farmer Case & Fedor Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 iO 1947A

111F