Panicaro v. State Bar of Nevada ( 2015 )

 A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of
an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See
NRS 34.160; see also Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601,
603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to decide whether a
petition will be entertained. We will generally refuse to issue an
extraordinary writ when there is an adequate remedy at law. Cote H. v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008); see
also NRS 34.170 Panicaro has such a remedy here.
1. If a request for inspection, copying or
copies of a public book or record open to inspection
and copying is denied, the requester may apply to
the district court in the county in which the book or
record is located for an order:
(a) Permitting the requester to inspect or
copy the book or record; or
(b) Requiring the person who has legal
custody or control of the public book or record to
provide a copy to the requester,
as applicable.
NRS 239.011(1) (emphasis added). By law, Panicaro must petition the
district court if he believes that the State Bar has failed to comply with its
obligation to disclose all requested public documents. District court
review is appropriate because there may be issues of fact, specifically if
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A en)
the parties dispute whether certain documents exist or whether specific
documents are public or confidential.
Because there exists an adequate remedy at law, we decline to
reach the parties' arguments on the merits and exercise original
jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
rpoi
Parraguirre
J.
Chza , J.
Cherry
cc: Charles R. Kozak
State Bar of Nevada/Las Vegas
Parsons Behle & Latimer/Reno
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (elm