Parraguirre C.J.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION
Parraguirre C.J.
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting reconsideration of an order striking an expert witness in a professional negligence action.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4; DM. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id., at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. To begin, petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. See NRS 34.170. Further, as this court has explained, "extraordinary writs are generally not available to review discovery orders." Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678 (2011). Although this rule is not absolute, see id., petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court's order falls within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Hardesty J., Stiglich J.
Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge