ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a torts action. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). We generally decline to exercise our discretion to entertain writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment, and we are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 819-20, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (discussing the propriety of granting mandamus relief where the petitioner alleges legal error). Accordingly, we
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.