IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VVYNN RESORTS, LIMITED, No. 73949 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, DEC 0 4 2017 Respondents, ELL7APZETH A BROWN and CLERK OF PREME COURT ay - KAZUO OKADA; UNIVERSAL DEPUTY CLERq ENTERTAINMENT CORP.; 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 an August 25, 2017, district court oral ruling concluding that the work-product privilege does not apply to certain Freeh report documents.

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 remedy precluding writ relief. Id. "Whether a future appeal is sufficiently adequate and speedy necessarily turns on the underlying proceedings' SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A C44, /7-4155 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 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, the challenged ruling resulted from the district court's consideration of this issue pursuant to Wynn Resorts, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 52, 399 P.3d 334, in which we addressed this same issue just a few months ago. 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 Dist. 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 issue presented herein is 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 10) 1947A ee7 court's broad discretion in determining whether to consider a writ petition), and we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cherry

1 , 9

Douglas

Sa t 44; ' - J. Atat ot:4 —° , 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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A