Ivey v. Dist. Ct. (Ivey, Jr.)

 bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.
Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Here, petitioner has not established that the district court was
required to allow additional discovery or that the district court acted
arbitrarily or capriciously in denying petitioner's request for further
discovery. See Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; see also
NRCP 16.21 (permitting a district court to reopen discovery on a showing
of good cause). Moreover, petitioner has not alleged that the district court
acted outside of its jurisdiction by denying the request. See Smith, 107
Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, as petitioner has not met her
burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted, see Pan,
120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844, we decline to exercise our discretion to
issue writ relief in this case. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677,
818 P.2d at 851. We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Gil5bons
p Parraguirre
J.
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division
Pecos Law Group
Chesnoff & Schonfeld
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
1