typically an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. Pan v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224-28, 88 P.3d 840, 841-44
(2004).
Here, our review of the parties' arguments and the supporting
documents demonstrates that petitioner has a speedy and adequate legal
remedy available in that, if he is ultimately aggrieved by the final decision
in the underlying judicial discipline proceedings, he may appeal that
decision to this court. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. While
this determination, in and of itself, provides sufficient grounds for the
denial of this petition, see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, we further note that
none of the issues presented in this matter constitute questions of first
impression and that petitioner has failed to articulate any public policy
that would be served by this court's exercise of its original jurisdiction over
this matter. See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. ,
, 262 P.3d 360, 365 (2011) (providing that this court's consideration of a
petition for extraordinary relief is warranted when important issues of law
require clarification and public policy is served by the exercise of our
original jurisdiction). • In addition, the discovery issues raised by petitioner
do not satisfy the requirements for this court's intervention, as petitioner
has not demonstrated that the discovery disputes at issue here involve
either a blanket discovery order without regard to relevance or the
compelled disclosure of privileged information. Valley Health Sys., LLC v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. „ 252 P.3d 676, 679 (2011).
Ultimately, our exercise of jurisdiction over this petition,
which was filed on the eve of the scheduled NCJD hearing regarding the
disciplinary complaint against petitioner, would serve only to prevent the
NCJD from resolving the underlying disciplinary proceeding in a timely
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
manner. Moreover, the continued delay of those proceedings would
undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial discipline
process and work to prejudice both petitioner and the NCJD. Under these
circumstances, the exercise of our original jurisdiction over this matter is
not warranted, and we therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Parraguirre
CHERRY, J., dissenting:
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues' decision to deny
this original writ petition and force the parties to wait until after the
conclusion of the underlying judicial discipline proceedings to have this
court weigh in on the important issues presented here. In reaching this
determination, the majority concludes that the availability of an appeal
following the entry of a final decision by the Nevada Commission on
Judicial Discipline (NCJD) provides petitioner, the Honorable Steven E.
"Having considered the request for sanctions and costs included in
respondent's answer to the petition, we conclude that the request should
be denied.
In light of this order, we vacate the temporary stay of the NCJD
hearing imposed by this court's July 26, 2013, order, and as such, deny the
July 22, 2013, motion for stay as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
Jones, with a speedy and adequate legal remedy to address the alleged
improprieties and procedural irregularities that he contends have occurred
over the course of the proceedings before the NCJD. But I am convinced
that intervention by this court to address the issues raised by Judge Jones
in this petition is more than appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.
As a result, I must dissent from the majority's decision.
It is well established that this court will consider petitions for
extraordinary relief when important issues of law require clarification and
public policy is served by the exercise of this court's original jurisdiction.
See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. „ 262 P.3d
360, 365 (2011). And in other contexts, this court has frequently found
occasion to weigh in, through the consideration of interlocutory writ
petitions, on issues arising from cases that remained pending in the
underlying tribunals. See, e.g., Williams, 127. Nev. at , 262 P.3d at 369
(granting, in part, an interlocutory petition for extraordinary relief to
address issues pertaining to the admissibility of expert testimony); Int?
Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 198, 179
P.3d 556, 559 (2008) (addressing the merits of the district court's refusal
to dismiss an action seeking False Claims Act whistleblower protections,
despite denying the interlocutory petition for extraordinary relief, because
an appeal at the conclusion of the action did not provide an adequate and
speedy legal remedy, the petition raised important public policy issues in
need of clarification, and the court's consideration of the petition at that
time promoted principles of judicial economy); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 168 P.3d 731 (2007) (granting, in part,
a petition for extraordinary writ relief challenging an interlocutory order
denying declaratory relief to address the appropriate method for
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
determining the sufficiency of pre-litigation notices of constructional
defects).
Given the scarcity of precedent from this court in the area of
judicial discipline proceedings and the important issues presented by this
petition, I see no reason that Judge Jones' petition should not receive
similar consideration. This court has an obligation to ensure that parties
are not subject to injustice in the course of any proceeding, much less
matters involving judicial discipline, and it cannot be denied that Judge
Jones has presented substantial issues warranting this court's full
consideration.
Moreover, this court has frequently stated that the promotion
of judicial economy remains the primary standard for determining when
this court will exercise its discretion to consider a petition for
extraordinary writ relief. See Williams, 127 Nev. at , 262 P.3d at 365
(citing Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1345, 950 P.2d
280, 281 (1997)). Based on the significance of the issues presented here, it
is clear that judicial economy would be best served by reaching the merits
of this petition, rather than delaying our review of these issues until after
the NCJD has issued its final decision. I would therefore transfer this
matter to the en banc court, extend the stay of the underlying judicial
discipline hearing, and order that this matter be set for oral argument in
September.
cc: Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
Jimmerson Hansen
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A
Jones v. Nev. Commission on Judicial Discipline
Combined Opinion