Kinney v. Dist. Ct. (Calif. State Automobile Ass'n.)

 burden of establishing that relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered petitioner's writ petition and appendix, we
conclude that our intervention is unwarranted, as the district court
properly determined that petitioner's proffered witness was not a rebuttal
witness. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Andrews v.
Harley Davidson, Inc., 106 Nev. 533, 539, 796 P.2d 1092, 1096 (1990)
(concluding that "Hebuttal evidence explains, contradicts, or disproves
evidence introduced by a defendant in his case-in-chief' and that "[t]he
test for determining what constitutes rebuttal evidence is whether the
evidence offered tends to contradict new matters raised by the adverse
party"); see NRCP 16.1(a)(2)(C)(ii) (providing that an expert cannot serve
as a rebuttal witness where that witness's purpose is to "contradict a
portion of another party's case in chief that should have been expected and
anticipated"). In particular, the expert reports show that petitioner's
expert's testimony merely concerned the elements of petitioner's claim and
did not rebut new matters raised by real parties in interest's experts.
Moreover, the record demonstrates that petitioner engaged this expert
approximately one year before the disclosure deadline for real parties in
interest's experts. The district court therefore properly determined that
petitioner's expert's testimony would not be rebuttal testimony. NRCP
16.1(a)(2)(C)(ii); Andrews, 106 Nev. at 539, 796 P.2d at 1096. Thus,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
petitioner has not demonstrated that writ relief is warranted.' Pan, 120
Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/ ACE-A 44;
Hardesty
J.
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter
Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
Washoe District Court Clerk
'We note that petitioner's writ petition is devoted solely to arguing
that the district court erred in failing to categorize her proffered expert
witness as a rebuttal witness. Because we agree with the district court's
determination in that regard, we need not consider the separate, unraised
issue of whether the district court's sanction of striking this witness was
an abuse of discretion. Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 126 Nev.
„ 235 P.3d 592, 596 (2010) (recognizing that discovery sanctions are
within the district court's discretion).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A