Opinion ID: 2453735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to raise an issue presentable to the discovery commissioner constitutes waiver of the issue

Text: Initially, however, we must consider the fact that although Cagnina's motion to compel was first heard before the discovery commissioner, Valley Health did not raise its privilege argument until the discovery commissioner's report and recommendation was before the district court for approval. This court has held that [a] point not urged in the trial court, unless it goes to the jurisdiction of that court, is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981); see also Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355, 1363-64, 929 P.2d 916, 921 (1996). One purpose of this rule is to allow the lower tribunal the first opportunity to decide the issue. See Oliver v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, 111 Nev. 1338, 1344-45, 905 P.2d 168, 173 (1995). We conclude that this principle is equally applicable where, as here, an issue is first heard by the discovery commissioner and then submitted to the district court for approval. Additionally, consideration of such untimely raised contentions would unduly undermine the authority of the Magistrate Judge by allowing litigants the option of waiting until a Report is issued to advance additional arguments. [8] Abu-Nassar v. Elders Futures, Inc., No. 88 Civ. 7906(PKL), 1994 WL 445638, at  n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 1994). A contrary holding would lead to the inefficient use of judicial resources and allow parties to make an end run around the discovery commissioner by making one set of arguments before the commissioner, waiting until the outcome is determined, then adding or switching to alternative arguments before the district court. All arguments, issues, and evidence should be presented at the first opportunity and not held in reserve to be raised after the commissioner issues his or her recommendation. All objections are to be presented to the commissioner so that he or she may consider all the issues before making a recommendation, so as not to frustrate the purpose of having discovery commissioners. See Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 863 F.2d 633, 638 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that allowing parties to litigate fully their case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different theory in the district court would frustrate the purpose of having magistrates), overruled on other grounds by U.S. v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Therefore, we hold that neither this court nor the district court will consider new arguments raised in objection to a discovery commissioner's report and recommendation that could have been raised before the discovery commissioner but were not. Based on the foregoing, Valley Health's argument against disclosure based on privilege would have been waived. However, for the purposes of this opinion, we elect to consider Valley Health's privilege argument on its merits.