Seibel Vs. Dist. Ct. (Desert Palace, Inc.)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 18, 2021
• Docket: 83071
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ROWEN SEIBEL; MOT1 PARTNERS, No. 83071 LLC; MOTI PARTNERS 16, LLC; LLTQ ENTERPRISES, LLC; LLTQ ENTERPRISES 16, LLC; TPOV ENTERPRISES, LLC; TPOV 16 ENTERPRISES, LLC; FERG 16, LLC; R SQUARED GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, FtLED DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF DNT ACQUISTION, LLC; GR BURGR, LLC; JUN 1 2021 AND CRAIG GREEN, BRAE; ni A. BROWN oF UPREME COURT Petitioners, BY DEP V CLERK vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, EN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DESERT PALACE, INC.; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; PHWLV, LLC: AND 130ARDWA1.AK 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.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

0i 1447A e ?A - ris-g2„ Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay, 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 petitioner's 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 petitioner's 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 DENl ED.2

, J. Cadish

, H ern don

1Petitioner'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.

SUPREME COURT 2 In light of this order, petitioner's motion for a stay is denied as moot. OF NEVADA 2 Kb 1941A .40X. cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Bailey Kennedy Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk