Source: https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/nevada/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:18:09+00:00

Document:
With special thanks to Mark A. Hinueber, Stephens Media LLC, Las Vegas, and JoNell Thomas, Las Vegas, who previously authored this outline.
Nevada is often recognized as having the strongest news shield law in the country. The law confers an absolute privilege upon reporters and protects unpublished and published materials, and the confidential sources of the information, in any proceeding.
Other than NRS 49.275, there appear to be no other sources of a reporter’s privilege within the State of Nevada.
Courts and commentators have generally recognized the fact that Nevada's news shield law offers the broadest protection to news media sources of any state shield law enacted in the United States.
NRS 49.275 provides for an absolute privilege, for both published and unpublished information. The news shield statute is not limited to confidential sources, but includes any source. The statute protects both the information obtained and the source of the information. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000); Aspen Financial Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013).
NRS 49.275 does not provide for a different standard for civil and criminal cases. The statute specifically refers to administrative matters, legislative hearings, other governmental proceedings, and court proceedings. As noted above, in Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that there may be certain situations where “the news shield statute may have to yield so that justice may be served,” such as where a defendants’ countervailing constitutional rights may be at issue. 116 Nev. 88, 101, 893 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).
It does not appear that any written opinions have been published in criminal cases concerning application of the press shield law. As noted above, in Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court stated there may be certain situations where “the news shield statute may have to yield so that justice may be served,” such as where a defendant’s countervailing constitutional rights may be at issue. 116 Nev. 88, 101, 893 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). A subpoena issued by the prosecution, however, would still be protected by the news shield statute and should be quashed because the State does not have any constitutional rights which would defeat application of the statute.
NRS 49.275 specifies that the privilege is applicable to grand jury proceedings. It should not be more difficult to defend against issuance of a subpoena in this context.
NRS 49.275 specifically protects the identity of a source. It also protects information that implicitly identifies a source of information. This is protection is available for both published and nonpublished information obtained by a reporter in that person’s professional capacity.
NRS 49.275 protects both confidential and non-confidential information.
NRS 49.275 protects both published and unpublished materials.
NRS 49.275 protects reporters who are eyewitnesses so long as they are acting as a reporter at the time of the observation. The statute protects from disclosure “any published or unpublished information obtained or prepared by [a reporter] in [his or her] professional capacity in gathering, receiving or processing information for communication to the public, or the source of any information procured or obtained by [the reporter].” Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879 (2013). NRS 49.275. The statute does not provide protection for information gathered in other capacities." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).
NRS 49.275 does not make any distinction between cases where the media is a party and where it is not. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).
NRS 49.275 covers reporters, former reporters, and editorial employees of any newspaper, periodical or press association. It all applies to employees of any radio or television station. The statute does not specifically define these terms.
NRS 49.275 does not define "editorial employee" and there appears to be no other statute defining this term.
NRS 49.275 does not define "news" and there appears to be no other statute defining this term.
NRS 49.275 does not specifically reference photojournalists.
NRS 49.275 specifies that the privilege is applicable to reporters, former reporters, and editorial employees of any newspaper, periodical or press association, and employees of any radio or television station. It does not provide any definitions for these terms. The privilege has been found applicable to a newspaper (as opposed to a reporter from a newspaper) and its publisher. Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Schwartz, 104 Nev. 508, 515 n.7, 761 P.2d 849, 854 n.7 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000) ("We are satisfied that the legislature meant to include newspaper publishers in its definition of 'editorial employees.'").
The press shield law does not apply by statutory language to non-traditional news gatherers such as authors and academic researchers. The statute is not limited to professional or paid reporters.
A party issuing a subpoena for a reporter’s testimony or materials is not required to make a sworn statement. A party may submit an affidavit or other evidence in support of a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena.
There is no requirement that a judge or magistrate approve a subpoena before a party may serve it.
Certain administrative proceedings may require application to a hearing officer or other appropriate authority to obtain permission to issue a subpoena. Once approved, there are no special rules regarding the use of other administrative subpoenas, police subpoenas or fire subpoenas.
Most objections to subpoenas to the media can be resolved by a simple telephone call. Some attorneys in Nevada may be unfamiliar with the news shield law. Reference should be made to NRS 49.275; Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875 (2013) and Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000). If the attorney agrees to withdraw the subpoena, a letter confirming this fact should be sent. Most local court rules require that the parties attempt to resolve discovery matters by contacting the other party either in person or by telephone prior to filing a motion to quash or a motion to compel.
In criminal cases a motion to quash should be filed. In civil cases, service of a timely objection is generally sufficient in response to a subpoena to produce and inspect documents, although it is not uncommon for a motion to quash or motion for protective order to be filed.
A motion to quash should be filed in the district court in criminal cases, with the discovery commissioner in civil cases pending in state court, and with the district court for civil cases that may be assigned to business court. Objections to the discovery commissioner's report and recommendation should be filed in the district court. For cases pending in federal district court that may implicate Nevada’s news shield law, a motion to quash should be directed to the assigned magistrate judge and objections to any resulting order should be directed to the federal district court judge.
A reporter should not wait for a motion to compel before filing a motion to quash in a criminal case. In civil cases, it is generally acceptable to wait for a motion to compel, although this is a matter of preference and it is acceptable to file a motion to quash or motion for protective order prior to the filing of a motion to compel.
Generally, the motion should be filed prior to the date and time listed on the subpoena and an order should be sought on shortened time or an emergency basis prior to the compliance deadline. If the subpoena is for trial testimony, the motion to quash should be filed as soon as possible. In either event, a reporter may petition the Nevada Supreme Court for extraordinary relief in the event a motion to quash is denied. Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 93, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000).
Reference should be made to the news shield statute and the First Amendment. NRS 49.275; Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 878 (2013); Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 94, 99, 993 P.2d 50, 54, 57 (2000).
In seeking protection, a motion to quash a subpoena should demonstrate that the information sought by the subpoena is facially protect by the news shield statute. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879 (2013). A reporter is not required to submit an affidavit establishing protection under NRS 49.275 so long as the party’s attorney establishes facial protection. Id.
The law does not direct a court to conduct an in camera review of materials or interview the reporter prior to deciding a motion to quash.
There is no automatic stay pending appeal in the event of an adverse ruling in cases where a reporter or publisher consents to an in camera review.
There are no published decisions concerning the consequences to a reporter or publisher who refuses to consent to an in camera review.
The briefing schedule varies by local rule, but in state district court, a response is generally due 10 judicial days, plus three days for service, after the filing of a motion; and 14 days in federal district court. Motions may be heard on shortened time or on an emergency basis if requested and ordered by the applicable commissioner, magistrate judge or district court judge.
NRS 49.275 provides for an absolute privilege, for both published and unpublished information. The news shield statute is not limited to confidential sources but includes any source. The statute protects both the information obtained and the source of the information. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It has not issued any opinions concerning a conflict between a criminal defendant's constitutional rights and the rights of the media under NRS 49.275. It is therefore unclear as to who would bear the burden and what the standard of proof would be in such a case.
A request for protection under the news shield statute may be raised by a reporter’s attorney in a motion to quash a subpoena, without the need to file a supporting affidavit, as long as the motion demonstrates that the information sought by the subpoena is facially protected by the news shield statute. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879 (2013), overruling Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 104 Nev. 508, 761 P.2d 849 (1988). A mere recitation of the statute alone remains insufficient to claim the privilege. Las Vegas Sun v. Schwartz, 104 Nev. 508, 514, 761 P.2d 849, 854 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000). Any objection to a subpoena, motion to quash or other motion should be accompanied by information sufficient to establish the information sought by the subpoena is facially protected. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc., 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d at 879.
In most cases, the relevance of the material or testimony that has been subpoenaed should be irrelevant. The privilege is absolute and does not rest on materiality. As noted above, however, the Nevada Supreme Court has noted in dicta that there may be situations in which the privilege may be defeated, such as in a case where a criminal defendant's constitutional rights would be violated if the privilege were recognized. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). In such a case, it is likely that the materiality of the testimony would be considered.
In most cases, the unavailability of the material from other sources should be irrelevant. The privilege is absolute and does not rest on unavailability from other sources. As noted above, however, the Nevada Supreme Court has noted in dicta that there may be situations in which the privilege is defeated, such as in a case where a criminal defendant's constitutional rights would be violated if the privilege were recognized. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). In such a case, it is likely that the unavailability of the of the testimony from other sources could be considered. It should also be noted that in Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000), a concurring opinion gave extensive analysis of the fact that the information sought was available from other sources. Although it appears that such discussion was not necessary for resolution of that matter, it may be indicative of the Court's interest in related factual issues and its potential evaluation when faced with a “defendant’s countervailing constitutional rights.” Id. at 101, 993 P.2d at 59.
In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not discussed any standards for exhaustion.
There is no statutory exception to the privilege for a source that was a witness to a crime. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It may be the case that if a source witnessed a crime or was a participant in a crime, and a criminal defendant required information about the source in order to defend himself against criminal charges, Nevada courts could find an exception to the news shield law in NRS 49.275. Such an argument should not prevail in cases where the prosecution seeks disclosure as the State has no constitutional rights that would prevail over the statutory privilege. There are no cases directly addressing this issue.
The terms of the statute do not provide for any judicial balancing of interests in determining whether to quash the subpoena. The Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). Thus, it has left open the possibility for a judicial balancing of interests in those circumstances.
The discovery commissioner and district court judges are generally entitled to make a determination as to whether a subpoena is overly broad or unduly burdensome, and a reporter’s attorney should also raise any such issue in connection with a motion to quash or for protective order.
In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not addressed whether a judge is required to weigh whether the matter subpoenaed involves a threat to human life.
In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not discussed considerations of whether the material would be cumulative.
The rules of procedure provide that a motion to quash may be filed to contest frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoenas. A timely objection to a subpoena may be made to the issuing party in civil cases that command production or permit inspection of documents and designated materials. NRCP 45(c)(2)(B). Sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys’ fees may also be sought, although they are granted far more often in civil cases than in criminal cases. NRCP 45(c)(1).
There are no other elements that must be met before the privilege can be overcome.
The privilege is not waived by publication of the information but will be deemed waived if the journalist relies on confidential information in defending against a libel action. The statute must be invoked in its entirety and the journalist will generally not be permitted to claim that he relied upon confidential sources. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).
In Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized that the privilege belongs to the reporter. The privilege covers both published and unpublished information, so it will not be waived based upon publication of otherwise confidential information.
Disclosure of a confidential source's name within the context of a published article will not be sufficient to waive the privilege. Disclosure of a confidential source's name to an editor or lawyer will not be sufficient to waive the privilege.
Disclosure of a non-confidential source's name will not be sufficient for waiver of the privilege.
If the reporter discloses some information from the source, the privilege will not be deemed waived. A reporter would likely not be permitted to provide partial information in defending a defamation or libel action and then claim the privilege for other information about the source. The statute must be invoked in its entirety.
Waiver may be found if the reporter attempts to defend a defamation or libel action by revealing partial information about a source. The statute must be invoked in its entirety.
There are no published Nevada cases addressing whether a waiver of the privilege will be found if a reporter agrees to partially testify, such as to confirm that the story is accurate and true as published.
In a civil case, a party issuing a subpoena for the production of documents and things must provide parties to the action with notice of not less than 15 days. NRCP 45(b)(1). Non-parties who are subpoenaed to produce documents or other materials are not required to be provided specific time to comply, but the rule does require an issuing party to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense. NRCP 45(c)(1). Additionally, a subpoena issued to a non-party for the production of documents or for inspection does not require personal attendance. NRCP 45(c)(2)(A).
There appear to be no Nevada cases addressing whether newspaper articles are self-authenticating or who can authenticate the material. NRS 52.145 provides that "printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals are presumed to be authentic."
There appear to be no Nevada cases specifically addressing whether tapes of broadcast materials are self-authenticating or what steps must be taken to authenticate a broadcast tape. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated that “the requirement of authentication . . . is satisfied by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Archanian v. State, 122 Nev. 1019, 1030, 145 P.3d 1008, 1016–17 (2006) (citing NRS 52.015(1)) (finding videotape downloaded from surveillance system authenticated by police detective testimony).
A declaration or affidavit from a reporter may be sufficient in some circumstances where a record was made in the course of regularly conducted activity. NRS 52.260; NRS 53.045 (permitting unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in lieu of affidavit). Further, declarations and affidavits are generally admissible in support of most motions, including dispositive motions, in Nevada courts. NRS 52.260.
Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness may be punished as a contempt by the court. In a civil action, if the person so refusing is a party, the court may strike any pleading on the person’s behalf, and may enter judgment against that person.
A witness disobeying a subpoena in a civil action shall also forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of $100 and all damages which the party may sustain by the failure of the witness to attend, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.
The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It has also held that "to the extent that a plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove that a media litigant either knew that the published information was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth, an assertion of the shield statute may result in discovery sanctions." Id. at n.6.
A petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus in connection with a discovery order is an appropriate remedy to prevent pretrial discovery of privileged material. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. In & For Cty. of Clark, 113 Nev. 521, 526, 936 P.2d 844, 847 (1997). An emergency petition seeking relief in less than 14 days may be filed in accordance with Rule 21 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appeals from municipal court or justice court are made to district court. Objections to an order from the discovery commissioner may be made to the district court. Appeals from district court are made to the Nevada Supreme Court. Nevada has an intermediate appellate court. The Nevada Supreme Court determines whether it will retain matters or whether it will assign review to the Nevada Court of Appeals.
A motion for stay pending appeal, or stay pending petition for extraordinary relief, will not be entertained by the Nevada Supreme Court unless a motion for stay is first made in the district court. The motion in the district court may be made orally or in writing. The motion for stay pending appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court must be made in writing. A motion for stay pending appeal should be premised upon violation of the news shield law codified in NRS 49.275, constitutional right, and a claim of irreparable harm in the event of forced disclosure prior to appellate review.
An appeal may be taken only if the person appealing the order is a party to the action and the order is either final or has been certified as final pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). A reporter who is not a party to an action may challenge an order compelling compliance with a subpoena through a petition for a writ of prohibition or a petition for a writ of mandamus. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of notice of entry of judgment in a civil case and within 30 days of a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. In Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000), the court entertained a petition for a writ of mandamus from a party to the action who challenged a district court's order quashing a subpoena to a reporter, despite the availability of an appeal, because there was "an important issue of law [which] needs clarification and public policy is served by this court's invocation of its original jurisdiction[.]" Nevada courts have also confirmed that a petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus in connection with a discovery order is an appropriate remedy to prevent pretrial discovery of privileged material. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. In & For Cty. of Clark, 113 Nev. 521, 526, 936 P.2d 844, 847 (1997).
Questions of statutory interpretation are subject to the Nevada Supreme Court's independent review. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 878 (2013); Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000).
It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed any mootness issues within the context of appeals or writ proceedings concerning the news shield law (NRS 49.275).
A reporter's attorney should file a petition for a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative, a writ of prohibition in cases where the reporter is not a party to the action, or in cases where confidential information will be disclosed in compliance with a district court order compelling production or testimony. A motion for stay pending appeal, or stay pending petition for extraordinary relief, should be made in the district court, and if denied, should be made in the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court may dissolve a contempt citation, order the issuance of a writ, or provide any other relief which it deems appropriate under the circumstances.
It appears that there are no published court decisions or statutes addressing newsroom searches.
It appears that there are no published court decisions or statutes limiting the scope of separation orders issued against reporters who are both trying to cover the trial and are on a witness list. In practice before the trial courts, a few attorneys have listed reporters on witness lists and have attempted to have the reporter excluded from the courtroom. There appear to be no known cases where a motion to quash a subpoena has not been successful; thus, a reporter has not been called to testify.
It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether subpoenas can be issued to third parties in an attempt to discover a reporter's source.
It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether sources may intervene anonymously to halt disclosure of their identities. There do not appear to be any Nevada cases addressing suits by sources concerning disclosure of their identities.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.