Tuesday, December 3, 2019 - Las Vegas - Full Court

Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t vs. Las Vegas Review Journal
Docket Number: 75518
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m.  - Full Court

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court order granting petitions for writs of mandamus in a public records case and from an order awarding costs. This case stems from the October 2017 mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas. Following the shooting, media outlets across the country began requesting public records from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro). These records included items such as evidence logs, interview reports, and bodycam footage. In response, Metro denied their requests, stating all records were confidential pending the outcome of its investigation. The media outlets were then successful in getting an order to compel Metro to disclose the records. When it came to how the records would be disclosed, Metro requested that the media outlets should be required to come to the station and inspect the bodycam footage in person instead of Metro having to produce copies of the footage. If Metro was required to produce copies of the footage, Metro argued that it should be permitted to charge the media for the staff time and personnel costs that it would take to produce the records. The district court denied both arguments and ordered Metro to come up with an appropriate estimate of how much it would cost to produce the copies, in accordance with its order. Metro failed to provide this cost estimate and later began producing copies of the records for the public at large.

ISSUES:

Issues: Whether: (1) Metro’s appeal is moot; (2) Metro should not have been required to produce the bodycam footage, because NRS 289.830 provides such footage should be made available for inspection only when it “may not otherwise be redacted;” (3) Metro should have been permitted to charge for staff time and personnel costs when it redacted bodycam footage; (4) bodycam footage and other electronic records should be included in NRS 239.055; (5) Metro waived its right to collect “extraordinary use” fees and costs for production; (6) dispatch logs are not a “geographic information system;” and (7) the district court erred in not requiring Metro to provide a privilege log.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do