Powers v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Bueno)

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a petition for writ relief challenging conditions imposed on a neuropsychological examination during civil discovery. The court held that NRS 629.620 is unconstitutional and of no effect to the extent it conflicts with NRCP 35, because it encroaches on the judiciary's authority to regulate discovery procedure. The court upheld disclosure of raw testing data to counsel subject to a protective order, but concluded that the district court had not established sufficient good cause for audio recording or an interpreter.

Holdings

1. NRS 629.620 violates the separation of powers doctrine and is of no effect to the extent it imposes conditions that conflict with or exceed those established by NRCP 35 for court-ordered mental or physical examinations during civil discovery.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting disclosure of raw testing data and testing materials to Bueno's counsel and other litigation participants, subject to a protective order.
3. The district court abused its discretion by permitting audio recording of the entire examination without articulating fact-specific circumstances amounting to good cause.
4. The district court abused its discretion by ordering an interpreter for the interview portion of the examination absent evidence of a real need or good cause.
5. Powers failed to demonstrate that the examination conditions violated his due process rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Nevada Supreme Court should exercise advisory mandamus jurisdiction over a challenge to the district court's discovery order.
2. Whether NRS 629.620 is constitutional to the extent it imposes conditions on court-ordered mental or physical examinations conducted under NRCP 35 during civil discovery.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting disclosure of raw neuropsychological testing data to counsel and other litigation participants subject to a protective order.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting audio recording of the neuropsychological examination without sufficient good cause.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by requiring the examination's interview portion to be conducted with a court-certified interpreter.
6. Whether the examination conditions violated Powers's due process rights.

Disposition

other