ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order compelling discovery. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330 (addressing prohibition relief standard); 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). Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and whether to consider a petition seeking such relief is within this courts sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Moreover, we generally decline to exercise our discretion as to petitions challenging discovery orders, and we are not convinced that any of the exceptions for doing so apply in this case. See Club Vista Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) (holding that a writ of prohibition is appropriate for challenging district court discovery orders). We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Stiglich, C.J.
Lee, J.
Bell, J.