IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 84159 

SEP 1 6 2022 

EL I.Z..4t.'ETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OF EV;PREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

EDGEWORTH FAMILY TRUST; AND 

AMERICAN GRATING, LLC, 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

TIERRA DANIELLE JONES, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

DANIEL S. SIMON; AND THE LAW 

OFFICE OF DANIEL S. SIMON, 

Real Parties in Interest. 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION IN PART AND DENYING PETITION IN 

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 

parties in interest to release to petitioners 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 funds being held in trust jointly 

by the parties for the purpose of satisfying Simon's fee above the amount it 

adjudicated during the pendency of appellate adjudication, and (2) the 

SUPREME COURT 

or 

NEVADA 

4(>) 1947A 
district court's refusal to compel Simon to produce 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 the file production 

issue 

Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy appropriate when no 

plain, speedy, or adequate legal remedy exists. See NRS 34.170. Generally, 

we consider a party's ability to appeal from a final judgment an adequate 

legal remedy that precludes writ relief. Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 

120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). It is the petitioner's burden to 

demonstrate that writ relief is 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, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). 

Having considered the petition and its supporting 

documentation, as well as the answer and reply, we are not persuaded that 

it is necessary to entertain the Edgeworths' petition with respect to the 

district court's refusal to release a certain portion of the 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 is unwarranted. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) Lq47A 

2 
Regarding 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 

regarding this issue. We previously dismissed the Edgeworths' appeal with 

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 deny the Edgeworths' petition with respect to the 

withholding of excess funds but entertain the petition regarding Simon's 

production of the Edgeworths' complete client file, which we address next. 

The district court erred in failing to require Simon to produce the complete 

client file to the Edgeworths under NRS 7.055 

This court may issue a writ of mandamus to correct or otherwise 

tgcompel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a 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 

during discovery 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. 

3 
Simon 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 to the 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. 

Addressing the protective order argument first, after reviewing 

the order and based on the totality of the 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 as being one-in-the-same as opposed to being separate parties. 

We reject Simon's argument that he is "disclosing" confidential information 

in contravention of the 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 

to compel Simon to produce to the Edgeworths their complete file after such 

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

A client who, after demand therefor and payment 

of the 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 

4 
least 5 days' notice to the attorney, obtain an order 

for the production of his 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 of money, 

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) 

(stating a "district court's power is limited to ordering the attorney to return 

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 secured that the Edgeworths 

would pay and therefore the district court had a duty under NRS 7.055 to 

compel Simon to produce to the Edgeworths their complete client file. Thus, 

mandamus relief is available to correct the district court's failure to compel 

Simon to produce the file. See NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition with respect to the release of the 

Edgeworth's funds DENIED and the petition with respect to the production 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

5 
, J. 

J. 

Hardesty 

Stiglich 

of the client file GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT 

TO ISSUE A WRIT OF mandamus instructing the district court to require 

Simon to produce the complete client file to the Edgeworths. 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge 

Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, Chief Judge 

Morris Law Group 

James R. Christensen 

Christiansen Trial Lawyers 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I 94 7A 44,S11. 

6