IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VISTANA CONDOMINIUM OWNERS No. 75951 ASSOCIATION, INC.; LARRY FITCH, AN INDIVIDUAL; ANTHONY KNELP, AN INDIVIDUAL; LYNN WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ARDYCE NELSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEC 2 0 2018 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF UPREME COURT CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY ' DEPUTY RICHARD SCOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SHARATH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATOR; REAL ESTATE DIVISION, STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY; AND COMMISSION FOR COMMON- INTEREST COMMUNITIES AND CONDOMINIUM HOTELS, FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order concerning application of the attorney-client privilege to evidence in an administrative agency matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Richard Scotti, Judge. In 2014, the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) received complaints against Vistana Condominium Owners' Association (Vistana) regarding an illegal towing scheme. NRED initiated an investigation into SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1 9.47A ce i the alleged towing scheme and into Vistana and its board members. The Nevada Commission for Common Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels (the Commission) filed a complaint against Vistana. Ultimately, the Commission decided that the Vistana board members were guilty of unlawful conduct. Vistana appealed the decision and, in response, NRED sought to introduce emails as new evidence it obtained. Vistana argued that those emails are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the emails are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Vistana now appeals that decision. This court has granted writ relief for discovery orders when the discovery order compels disclosure of privileged information. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 679 (2011). Vistana argues that the emails at issue are subject to the attorney-client privilege, and• thus writ relief is appropriate. Having considered the petition, we are not convinced that our intervention is warranted. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) ("[T]he issuance of a writ of ... prohibition is purely discretionary with this court."). ORDER the petition DENIED.

S tAA. tett\ j. Gibbons Hardesty

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP/Las Vegas Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 41.14VP