STOJACK VS. DIST. CT. (J.R.-S.) (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Stojack sought traditional mandamus relief from the denial of a motion to disclose his minor child's therapy records. The court recited the governing framework: mandamus is available "to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion," citing NRS 34.160 and Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and entertaining a petition is discretionary with the appellate court. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Quoting Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 186 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020), the court stated: "Where a district court is entrusted with discretion on an issue, the petitioner's burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action by that court is substantial; we can issue traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously." Applying that standard, the court concluded, based on its review of the writ petition and the documents before it, that Stojack had not demonstrated that extraordinary intervention was warranted. The court also cited Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012), for "the general policy against considering writ petitions challenging discovery decisions." The petition was denied under NRAP 21(b)(1). The order contains no substantive analysis of privilege, confidentiality, or the standards governing disclosure of a minor's therapy records; the opinion does not address those questions.

In plain language

Ryan Stojack asked a lower court (the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County) for access to his minor child's therapy records. The district court denied that request. Stojack then asked the Nevada Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus — an extraordinary court order compelling a lower court to perform an act the law requires as a duty, or to correct an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. The Court of Appeals explained that this kind of writ is an extraordinary remedy, and that the appellate court has discretion over whether to even consider such a petition. When the lower court's decision was itself a matter of discretion — as discovery decisions typically are — the person seeking the writ carries a heavy burden. After reviewing the petition and the documents before it, the court concluded that Stojack had not shown that extraordinary intervention was warranted, and it denied the petition. The court also noted the general policy against considering writ petitions that challenge discovery decisions. The order does not discuss the underlying facts of the family case or the merits of the records request in any detail.