IN THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 84159



### SEP 16 2022
ELI.Z..4t.'ETHA.BROWN CLERK OF EV;PREME COURT BY DEPUTYCLERK EDGEWORTH FAMILYTRUST;AND AMERICAN GRATING, LLC, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, INAND FOR THE COUNTYOF CLARK;AND THE HONORABLE TIERRA DANIELLE JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DANIEL S. SIMON;AND THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL S. SIMON, Real Partiesin Interest. ORDER GRANTINGPETITIONINPARTANDDENYING PETITIONIN PART This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus to release client funds in excess of an adjudicated lien amount and to direct the real partiesin interest torelease topetitioners their client file.

This petition stems from the ongoing dispute regarding real party in interest Daniel Simon's fee for services he provided to petitioners Edgeworth Family Trust and American Grating, LLC (collectively, the Edgeworths) as part of the settlement of a products liability action. The Edgeworths challenge two separate issues in their petition: (1) the district court's decision to decline to release client fundsbeing held in trustjointly by the partiesfor the purpose ofsatisfyingSimon'sfee above the amount it adjudicated during the pendency of appellate adjudication, and (2) the

SUPREME COURT or NEVADA

4(>) 1947Adistrict court's refusal to compel Simon toproduce to the Edgeworths their

complete client file. The Edgeworths seek a writ of mandamus to compel both acts. We consider the Edgeworths'petition only with respect to thefileproduction issue Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy appropriate when no plain, speedy,or adequatelegalremedyexists. SeeNRS 34.170. Generally,
we consider a party's ability to appeal from a final judgment an adequate legal remedy thatprecludeswrit relief. Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). It isthe petitioner'sburden to demonstrate that writ reliefis appropriate, id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844, and it is within this court's sole discretion to decide whether to entertain a petition for writ relief, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818P.2d 849, 851 (1991).

Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, aswell asthe answer and reply, we are not persuaded that it is necessary to entertain the Edgeworths' petition with respect to the district court'srefusal to release a certainportion ofthe Edgeworths'client funds being held jointly in trust. Namely, we are unpersuaded that no adequate legal remedy exists to address the district court's decision. Instead, we conclude the opposite is true in that pending a final decision regarding the fee dispute matter and, after all appellate remedies are exhausted, any funds not awarded to Simon will be disbursed to the Edgeworths. Because the issue of Simon's appropriate fee is still being litigated, and because the Edgeworths have not proffered any compelling
reason that access to those funds is presently needed, extraordinary intervention isunwarranted.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) Lq47A 2Regarding the second issue, we conclude that the Edgeworths'

have satisfactorily shown that an adequate legal remedy does not exist to challenge the district court's refusal to compel Simon to produce their complete client file and therefore choose to entertain their petition regardingthis issue. We previously dismissed the Edgeworths'appealwith respect to the file production issue, concluding that the order in which the district court denied production was not a final order from which an appeal could be taken. See Edgeworth Farn. Tr. v. Simon, Nos. 83258/83260 (Nev. Dec. 13, 2021) (Order Consolidating and Partially Dismissing Appeals). Thus, no adequate legal remedy exists to address this issue. Further, Simon's argument regarding the possibility of potential further motion practice before the district court is unpersuasive in demonstrating that an adequate legal remedy exists.

Therefore, we denythe Edgeworths'petition with respect tothe withholding of excess funds but entertain the petition regarding Simon's production ofthe Edgeworths' complete client file, which we address next. The district court erred in failing to require Simon toproduce the complete clientfile to the Edgeworths under NRS 7.055

Thiscourt mayissue awritofmandamustocorrect or otherwise 

### tg compel theperformanceofanactwhich thelaw especiallyenjoinsasa duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." NRS 34.160. Here, the district court declined to compel Simon to produce the complete client file to the Edgeworths, relying on a previous protection order the parties entered into duringdiscovery in the underlying products liability action.

The Edgeworths aver that the district court's reliance on the protection order was erroneous because the protection order did not apply. Namely, they assert that Simon and the Edgeworths were considered to be the same party under the order and therefore production of the file from

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) llA AD. 3Simon to the Edgeworths was not subject to the order. Alternatively, and

not addressed by the district court, they argue that the district court had a duty to produce to them their complete file after they appropriately made a motion tothe court under NRS 7.055.

In response, Simon argues that the district court properly determined that the protection order applied to Simon and the Edgeworths and that the Edgeworths were required to properly comply with the agreement prior to Simon's duty to disclose. Alternatively, Simon rebuts the Edgeworths' argument that NRS 7.055 required production by arguing the prerequisite, that an attorney be paid before production becomes compelled, has not been satisfied because he has not yet received actual payment for his services.

Addressingthe protective order argument first, after reviewing the order and based on the totality ofthe circumstances, we conclude that the order does not prevent Simon from disclosing any portion of the Edgeworths' file, including those confidential portions subject to the order. Specifically, at least to a certain extent, the order treats Simon and the Edgeworths asbeing one-in-the-same asopposed tobeing separateparties. We reject Simon's argument that he is "disclosing"confidential information in contravention ofthe protection order. Thus, we conclude that the district court's reliance on the protective order was erroneous.

We further conclude that the district court had a statutory duty tocompel Simon toproduce to the Edgeworthstheir completefile after such

a demand was made under NRS 7.055. NRS 7.055(2) states:

A client who, after demand therefor and payment ofthe fee due from the client, does not receive from his or her discharged attorney all papers, documents, pleadings and items of tangible personal property may, by a motion filed after at

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

I947A 4least 5 days' notice tothe attorney, obtain an order for the production ofhis or her papers, documents, pleadings and other property. To the extent Simon argues that the Edgeworths have not complied with NRS 7.055(2)'s language that production is required only "after.

.. payment of the fee due," we conclude that Simon reads the requirement of payment too narrowly. Payment is defined as "[p]erformance of an obligation by the delivery of money or some other valuable thing accepted in partial or full discharge of the obligation." Payment, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Moreover, we have previously construed the term broadly by considering the requirement satisfied when a party, even without making an actual transfer ofmoney, provides sufficient security evidencing their intent to pay. See Figliuzzi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 111 Nev. 338, 343, 890 P.2d 798, 801 (1995) (statinga "district court'spowerislimitedtoorderingthe attorneytoreturn papers upon the client's presentment of adequate security" (emphasis added)). Here, Simon made a demand of $2 million in attorney fees. The Edgeworths, although contesting the amount owed, placed $2 million of their settlement proceeds into a trust account that is jointly managed by themselves and Simon. Funds in the account can only be removed with authorization by both Simon and the Edgeworths. Based on the foregoing facts, we conclude that Simon was sufficiently securedthat the Edgeworths would pay and therefore the district court had a duty under NRS 7.055 to compel Simontoproducetothe Edgeworthstheircompleteclientfile. Thus, mandamusreliefis available tocorrect the district court'sfailure to compel Simon toproduce the file. See NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition with respect to the release of the Edgeworth'sfundsDENIED and the petition withrespecttotheproduction

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 5J. , J. Hardesty

Stiglich ofthe client file GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF mandamus instructingthe district court to require Simon toproduce the complete client file tothe Edgeworths.

Herndon

cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge Hon.Jerry A. Wiese, ChiefJudge Morris Law Group James R. Christensen ChristiansenTrial Lawyers Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 44,S11. 6