S. Hills Med. Ctr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Ames)

Nevada Supreme Court

S. Hills Med. Ctr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Ames)

DecidedOctober 13, 2017

Docket73661

StatusUnpublished

This text of S. Hills Med. Ctr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Ames) (S. Hills Med. Ctr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Ames)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

S. Hills Med. Ctr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Ames), (Neb. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SOUTHERN HILLS MEDICAL CENTER, No. 73661 LLC, D/B/A SOUTHERN HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN FILED AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE OCT 1 3 2017 BELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Respondents, BY V- CI -13 DE.PUnt RK and MARIA AMES, AS INDIVIDUAL HEIR OF CHARO CARLIN-GONZALEZ; AND RENEE CHATMAN, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARO CARLIN-GONZALEZ, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order adopting a discovery commissioner's report and recommendation regarding production of documents for in camera review. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

m 1947A ea= ("Discovery matters are within the district court's sound discretion, and [this court] will not disturb a district court's ruling regarding discovery unless the court has clearly abused its discretion."). As petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court "clearly abused its discretion" in approving the recommendation for in camera review of certain documents to determine whether the documents are privileged, Club Vista, 276 P.3d at 249, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/ JO-ads-a; J. Hardesty

(Litz- (-L- P arra guirre

' J. Stiglich

cc: Hon Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas The Gage Law Firm, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4)019:0

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SOUTHERN HILLS MEDICAL CENTER, No. 73661 LLC, D/B/A SOUTHERN HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN FILED AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE OCT 1 3 2017 BELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Respondents, BY V- CI -13 DE.PUnt RK and MARIA AMES, AS INDIVIDUAL HEIR OF CHARO CARLIN-GONZALEZ; AND RENEE CHATMAN, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARO CARLIN-GONZALEZ, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order adopting a discovery commissioner's report and recommendation regarding production of documents for in camera review. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

m 1947A ea= ("Discovery matters are within the district court's sound discretion, and [this court] will not disturb a district court's ruling regarding discovery unless the court has clearly abused its discretion."). As petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court "clearly abused its discretion" in approving the recommendation for in camera review of certain documents to determine whether the documents are privileged, Club Vista, 276 P.3d at 249, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/ JO-ads-a; J. Hardesty

(Litz- (-L- P arra guirre

' J. Stiglich

cc: Hon Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas The Gage Law Firm, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4)019:0

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

S. Hills Med. Ctr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Ames), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-hills-med-ctr-llc-v-dist-ct-ames-nev-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack