Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Dist. Ct. (Okada)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 4, 2017
• Docket: 73641
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED, No. 73641 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ALE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, DEC 0 4 2017 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN and CLERKDF SUPREME COURT BY. KAZUO OKADA; UNIVERSAL DEPUTY CLE

ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; AND ARUZE USA, INC., 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 June 14, 2017, district court order granting a motion to compel production of certain communications with petitioner's accountants. Mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, available only when the petitioner has no "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; see also D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007). The right to appeal in the future, after a final judgment is ultimately entered, generally constitutes an adequate and speedy legal

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

Ill) 1947A 11 Lit - remedy precluding writ relief. Id. "Whether a future appeal is sufficiently adequate and speedy necessarily turns on the underlying proceedings' status, the types of issues raised in the writ petition, and whether a future appeal will permit this court to meaningfully review the issues presented." Id. at 474-75, 168 P.3d at 736. Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention is warranted at this time. This case has been pending in the district court since 2012, several interlocutory issues of substantial magnitude already have been addressed by this court, see, e.g., Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 52, 399 P.3d 334 (2017); Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 83, 359 P.3d 1106 (2015), and the underlying proceedings are approaching a set trial date. Moreover, petitioner seeks relief from a discovery order compelling the disclosure of certain accounting documents, but this court rarely entertains writ petitions addressed to discovery issues, generally intervening only when "the resulting prejudice would not only be irreparable, but of a magnitude that could require the imposition of such drastic remedies as dismissal with prejudice or other similar sanctions." Wardleigh v. Second Judicial Din. Court, 111 Nev. 345, 351, 891 P.2d 1180, 1184 (1995). Although petitioner claims that the district court's order allows the disclosure of privileged information and as a result meaningful review on appeal could be compromised, we conclude that the issues presented herein are not of such a magnitude so as to require our extraordinary and rare intervention, given the upcoming trial date. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider this writ petition. D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737 (recognizing this

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10)19174 47a. court's broad discretion in determining whether to consider a writ petition), and we ORDER the petition DENIED. 1

Douglas

a.A AA; , J. Atasben_O J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Chief Judge Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro, LLC/Los Angeles BuckleySandler LLP Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP Morris Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, we vacate the stay of the district court's June 14, 2017, order compelling production, which was granted by the court of appeals on August 8, 2017, and continued by this court on November 30, 2017.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A statT)