Teems Vs. Dist. Ct. (Mgm Resorts Int'L)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 16, 2020
• Docket: 80616
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

EDWARD TEEMS, No. 80616 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, . iF.IROINN Respondents, UPR.V't- COU

and MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; RAMPARTS, LLC, D/B/A LUXOR HOTEL AND CASINO; NEW CASTLE, LLC, D/B/A EXCALIBUR HOTEL & CASINO; AND JASON SCARALE, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order adopting the discovery commissioner's recommendations in a tort action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging discovery orders, and we are

SUPREM E COURT OF NEVADA

(01 1947A Apr, 7,o-1,107-g not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678-79 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining discovery-related writ petitions). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

ALO.....06.44r77 Parraguirre

, J. Hardesty

Cadish

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Nersesian & Sankiewicz Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson, A Professional Corporation/Las Vegas Sem.enza Kircher Rickard Eighth District Court Clerk