ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion in limine to limit expert witness testimony in a torts matter. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that “the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court”). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging admissibility determinations, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524-25, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining admissibility-related writ petitions). We therefore,
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.