No. 82831 

FILED 

JAN 2 7 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERT TREmE CouRT 

BY 

DEPUTTV 

. . • 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

YEONHEE LEE, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

ALBERTO EDUARDO CARIO, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging 

a district court order adopting a discovery commissioner's recommendation 

that the medical examination of real party in interest's physical condition 

proceed under NRS 52.380. 

Petitioner, Yeonhee Lee, alleges the district court manifestly 

abused its discretion by adopting a discovery commissioner's 

recommendation that NRS 52.380 supersedes NRCP 35. We elect to 

entertain this petition because "judicial economy and sound judicial 

administration militate in favor of writ review." Scarbo v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 118, 121, 206 P.3d 975, 977 (2009). 

In Lyft, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, we held NRS 

52.380 unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 431§P*4 

4' :La • 4 , .;kz 
doctrine. 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 86, P.3d _ (2021). Specifically, NRS 52.380 

violated separation of powers because it is a procedural statute that 

conflicts with NRCP 35—a preexisting court rule. See State v. Connery, 99 

Nev. 342, 345, 661 P.2d 1298, 1300 (1983) C[T]he [L]egislature may not 

enact a procedural statute that conflicts with a pre-existing procedural rule, 

without violating the doctrine of separation of powers, and . . . such a 

statute is of no effect."). Given our holding in Lyft, writ relief is appropriate 

in this case because the district court's adoption of the discovery 

commissioner's recommendation that NRS 52.380 supersedes NRCP 35, 

and its resulting denial of Lee's motion, constituted a manifest abuse of 

discretion. Cf. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 

603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Further, issuance of the writ is 

appropriate because the parties are still in the early stages of litigation and 

issuing the writ serves the interests of judicial administration. Int? Game 

Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 198, 179 P.3d 556, 

559 (2008). 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 order adopting the discovery commissioner's 

2 

:••.:4..1 ..• .„ • 
J. 

Hardesty 

report and instruct the district court to analyze the parties positions 

consistent with NRCP 35.' 

Parraguirre 

.414G. , J. 

Stiglich 

, J. 

Cadish Silver 

Pickering Herndon 

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge 

Hon. Linda M. Bell, Chief Judge 

Duane Morris LLP/New York 

Duane Morris LLP/Las Vegas 

Maier Gutierrez & Associates 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Real party in interest, Alberto Eduardo Cario, requested that we not 

consider Lee's petition because she did not comply with NRS 30.130 prior to 

filing this petition. NRS 30.130 only applies to declaratory judgment 

actions. State, Office of the Att:y Gen. v. Justice Court of Las Vegas Twp. 

(Escalante), 133 Nev. 78, 82, 392 P.3d 170, 173 (2017). This is not a 

declaratory judgment action. Therefore, we reject Cario's request. 

3 

wi• 

' !.. . .