ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION 

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or 

prohibition challenging a district court order excluding expert 

extrapolation testimony and a district court order conditionally granting 

further destructive testing. 

After this petition was filed, the district court entered an order 

on April 2, 2013, that vacated portions of the order conditionally granting 

petitioners' request to conduct further destructive testing. Specifically, in 

its April 2 order, the district court permitted petitioners to begin 

additional destructive testing and vacated the portions of its October 29, 

2013, order that severed the trial on the construction defect claims from 

the trial on the breach of contract and lien claims.' 

The April 2 district court order, however, necessarily changes 

the issues before this court in this petition. In particular, because the 

district court has allowed for additional testing, the status of the 

admissibility of extrapolation testimony at trial is uncertain at this stage. 

In light of the tenuous status of the district court's prior ruling on the 

extrapolation testimony, it is inappropriate for this court to exercise its 

discretion to intervene by way of extraordinary writ relief, and it therefore 

appears that the only issue remaining for this court's review is the district 

'On June 5, 2013, petitioners filed a motion for leave to file a 

clarification of the current status of the district court's October 5, 2010, 

extrapolation order addressed by the writ petition. Real parties in interest 

Perini Building Company, Inc., Pacific Coast Steel, Century Steel, Inc., 

and Ceco Concrete Construction have filed an opposition to that motion. 

Having considered the motion, we grant it and direct the clerk of this 

court to detach the clarification from the motion and file the clarification. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
court's imposition of costs. Indeed, when asked at oral argument whether 

the district court's order modifying the conditional order and allowing for 

additional destructive testing changes this court's review, the parties 

conceded that the district court's April order reduced this court's review in 

this petition to the costs associated with those tests. 2 

It is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ 

petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 

674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). With few exceptions, this court 

generally will not consider a writ petition challenging a district court's 

determination regarding the admissibility of evidence. See Williams v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. „ 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2001) 

(providing that this court will only consider a district court's 

determination regarding the admission of evidence in a writ petition when 

public policy is served by that consideration because the petition raises an 

important issue of law needing clarification or when the petition raises an 

issue of first impression that is of public importance); see also Valley 

Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. „ 252 

P.3d 676, 679 (2011) (providing that this court will typically only grant 

extraordinary relief to prevent improper discovery in two situations—when 

the district court has issued a blanket discovery order with no regard to 

relevance or when the discovery order compels disclosure of privileged 

information). 

2Petitioners also assert that real parties in interest's experts have 

recently raised concerns about the structural integrity of the Harmon 

Tower, but the parties acknowledge that that issue and the district court's 

decision to vacate an earlier order regarding the demolition of the Harmon 

Tower are not before this court. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 

Wcia.tear"-4g 
J. 

Hardesty 

Dg1as 

Cherry 

Saitta 

Since the admissibility of extrapolation evidence is, at this 

point, unclear, the only remaining issue in the writ petition for this court's 

consideration is the imposition of costs associated with petitioners' need to 

conduct additional destructive testing. That issue does not present an 

issue of first impression or matter of public policy that may not be 

challenged on appeal, and thus, our intervention by way of extraordinary 

writ relief is not warranted. See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial 

Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (explaining that 

an appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see 

also NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 3 

J. 

Gibbons 

J. 

3The Honorable Kristina Pickering, Chief Justice, and the Honorable 

Ron D. Parraguirre, Justice, voluntarily recused themselves from 

participation in the decision of this matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 

rev-,z2 L.-IferaMi 
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro, LLC 

Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas 

Jones Day/San Francisco 

Robertson & Associates, LLP 

Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo & Blake, APC 

Michael E. Kostrinsky 

Hutchison & Steffen, LLC 

Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP/Las Vegas 

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas 

Meyers McConnell 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas 

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP 

Gordon & Rees, LLP 

Martin & Allison, Ltd. 

Ryan Mercaldo, LLP 

Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

5 

(0) 1947A