IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

BOBBY RICHARDS, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

JOSEPH T. BONAVENTURE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

RealParty in Interest. 

No. 67992 

FILED 

JAN 28 2016 

TRACIE K. UNDEMAN 

CLER9F SUPREME COURT 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION 

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challengiag 

an order of the district court granting a discovery request. Petitioner 

Bobby Richards contends that the district court manifestly abused its 

discretion in granting a discovery request for correspondence between 

defense counsel and an expert witness. See NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. 

Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). We 

elect to exercise our discretion to consider the merits of this petition 

because Richards does not have an adequate remedy at law to address the 

district court's action. See NRS 34.170 (providing that a "writ shall be 

issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy 

in the ordinary course of law"). Although he could raise the evidentiary 

ruling on appeal if he is convicted, forcing Richards to disclose nondiscoverable communication between his counsel and expert witness may 

prejudice his ability to mount a defense. See Mitchell v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 21, 359 P.3d 1096, 1099 (2015) (noting that 

this court has granted "extraordinary writ relief from orders allowing 

pretrial discovery of privileged information, especially when the petition 

-0302 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A Q 
presents an unsettled and important issue of statutory privilege law"); 

State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Romano), 120 Nev. 613, 618, 97 P.3d 

594, 597 (2004) (noting that this court has entertained extraordinary writs 

to prevent improper discovery), overruled on other grounds by Abbott v. 

State, 122 Nev. 715, 138 P.3d 462 (2006). Further, judicial economy 

militates in favor of addressing the order despite the district court's failure 

to reduce it to writing. See State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 175, 787 P.2d 

805, 819 (1990) (providing that this court may entertain petition for 

extraordinary relief, when judicial economy militates in favor of writ 

review). 

We conclude that Richards' petition has demonstrated that 

our intervention is warranted because the district court manifestly abused 

its discretion in ordering disclosure of the correspondence. See State v. 

Eighth Judicial Din. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 

777, 780 (2011) (providing that a manifest abuse of discretion occurs when 

a district court clearly misinterprets or misapplies a law or rule). The 

synopsis that the district court ordered disclosed was contained in 

correspondence from Richards' counsel to a potential expert witness while 

investigating possible defense theories. Thus, the correspondence is 

squarely a "memorandum that [was] prepared by . . . the defendant's 

attorney in connection with the investigation or defense of the case," NRS 

174.245(2)(a), and therefore not subject to discovery or inspection. As 

counsel did not intend to solicit the expert's opinion regarding the specific 

facts of Richards' case, the synopsis was not rendered discoverable. See 

Lisle v. State, 113 Nev. 679, 696, 941 P.2d 459, 471 (1997) (noting that a 

party may waive the protection of NRS 174.245 by making testimonial use 

of the protected documents), holding limited on other grounds by 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A er, 

2 
j. 

Hardest 

• 

J. 

Middleton v. State, 114 Nev. 1089, 1117 n.9, 968 P.2d 296, 315 n.9 (1998). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to vacate its discovery order. 

Saitta 

PICKERING, J. dissenting: 

As I understand the record, Dr. Roitman is not merely "a 

potential expert witness" with whom the defense was exploring "possible 

defense theories" as the majority suggests, but a disclosed, testifying trial 

expert. Given this fact, and the redacted disclosure ordered, I am not 

convinced that the petitioner has demonstrated an adequate basis for this 

court to intervene by extraordinary writ. See NRS 50.305 ("The expert 

may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his or her reasons 

therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the 

judge requires otherwise." (emphasis added)). I respectfully dissent. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. Joseph T. Bonaventure, Senior Judge 

Law Office of Patricia M. Erickson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3 

(0) 1947A