POWERS v. DIST. CT. (BUENO) (CIVIL)

── POWERS v. DIST. CT. (BUENO) (CIVIL) ── Court: Nevada Supreme Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 142 Nev., Advance Opinion IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA GABRIEL POWERS, No. 89144 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, - FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAY 14 2026 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE GLORIA STURMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CARLOS PATINO BUENO, Real Party in Interest. Original petition •for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenging a district court discovery order compelling a neuropsychological examination. Petition granted in part and denied in part. Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP and Daniel F. Polsenberg and Kory J. Koerperich, Las Vegas; Hall Jaffe, LLP, and Steven T. Jaffe and Kevin S. Smith, Las Vegas, for Petitioner. Bighorn Law and Kimball Jones and Joshua P. Berrett, North Las Vegas, for Real Party in Interest. The Schnitzer Law Firm and Jordan P. Schnitzer, Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae Nevada Justice Association. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A  Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP and Michael P. Lowry, Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae Las Vegas Defense Lawyers. BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC. OPINION By the Court, HERNDON, C.J.: The rules of civil procedure govern court-ordered mental and physical examinations of a party for purposes of litigation. See NRCP 35(a). In 2021, we ruled that a statute governing the same, NRS 52.380, unconstitutionally encroached on the inherent power of the judiciary to regulate court procedures. Lyft, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 137 Nev. 832, 501 P.3d 994 (2021). In response, the legislature enacted NRS 629.620, which applies to persons required to undergo a mental or physical examination by court order, contractual obligation, or some other obligation. Like its predecessor, NRS 629.620 permits exam conditions that directly contradict those addressed in NRCP 35. In this writ proceeding, petitioner challenges a district court order directing the plaintiff in civil litigation to comply with an examination subject to conditions beyond or contradictory to those set forth in NRCP 35 but arguably allowed by NRS 629.620. We hold that NRS 629.620 violates the separation of powers doctrine to the extent that it imposes conditions that conflict with or exceed those that NRCP 35 establishes for court-ordered independent medical or physical examinations during discovery. Therefore, to the extent NRS 629.620 applies to NRCP 35-based exarninations in civil discovery, it is SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 40) 1947A 44D ,1, 2  unconstitutional and of no effect. As to the specific conditions challenged here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the disclosure