Nevada Supreme Court, 2021

United Healthcare Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Fremont Emergency Servs. (Mandavia), Ltd.)

United Healthcare Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Fremont Emergency Servs. (Mandavia), Ltd.)
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided October 25, 2021

United Healthcare Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Fremont Emergency Servs. (Mandavia), Ltd.)

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE No. 83629 COMPANY; UNITED HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC.; UMR, INC.; SIERRA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; AND HEALTH PLAN OF NEVADA, INC., PILE Petitioners, OCT 2 5 2021 vs. EUZAB A. BROM THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CLE 0 PREME COURT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, BY OEPU C IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and FREMONT EMERGENCY SERVICES (MANDAVIA), LTD.; TEAM PHYSICIANS OF NEVADA- MANDAVIA, P.C.; AND CRUM STEFANKO AND JONES, LTD., 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 district court order denying petitioners motion to quash trial subpoenas compelling the appearance and testimony of certain out-of-state employees and former employees of petitioners. Petitioners have also filed an emergency motion seeking to stay enforcement of the subpoenas pending

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

01), 19-17A - OS our consideration of the writ petition. Real parties in interest have filed an opposition to the stay motion, and petitioners have filed a reply.' Having considered the petition and supporting documentation,2 we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.3

J.

Parraguirre

c...,...0 J.

Stiglich

J.

Silver

'Petitioners motion for leave to file a reply 3 pages in excess of the NRAP 27(d)(2) page limit is granted; the reply was filed on October 24, 2021.

2Petitioners' motion to file a portion of the appendix under seal, pursuant to a district court protective order, is granted. SRCR 3(4)(b). The clerk of this court shall file, under seal, appendix volume 2, which was provisionally received in this court on October 19, 2021.

3In light of this order, petitioners' emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (4 11 I 947A adiF,:s. cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC/Las Vegas McDonald Carano LLP/Las Vegas Lash & Goldberg LLP/Ft. Lauderdale Ahrnad, Zavistanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C./Houston Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVACM (o, I V47

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.