Court Opinion

ID: 9796379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:56:26.339413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:11.550463
License: Public Domain

Gibbons, J.,
dissenting:
I would affirm the decision of the district court.
“[IJnformed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment.”1 The Nevada Public Records Act, NRS 239.010, provides citizens with an unqualified right to access public records unless the records are declared confidential by law. We have held that any exception to this statute “should be interpreted and applied narrowly.’ ’2
Since the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor Project (ReTRAC) is classified as a highway project, the City of Reno (City) is required to adhere to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Act). Under 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b), records maintained in accordance with the Act “are confidential regarding their use as public information, unless applicable law provides otherwise.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, a state such as Nevada may make an independent determination *62of whether public records relating to the Act should be deemed confidential.
The Nevada Public Records Act is the applicable law governing the “confidentiality” of ReTRAC documents. Neither party has disputed that the pertinent documents are public records. The purpose of NRS 239.010 is “to ensure the accountability of the government to the public by facilitating public access to vital information about governmental activities.”3 This coincides with Nevada’s general policy of favoring open government.4 In applying Nevada law and considering the intent of the legislature in creating NRS 239.010, public records relating to property acquisition for ReTRAC should not be “confidential.” Rather, these documents should be subject to review by the citizens most affected by its impact.
ReTRAC is the largest and most costly public works project in the history of the City with a cost of $282 million. The project’s acquisition budget alone is projected at nearly $18 million. The project includes the acquisition of thirty-two parcels of land and relocation of approximately fifty-two businesses. The legislature’s intent of holding local agencies accountable through public scrutiny necessitates that public documents pertaining to property acquisition under ReTRAC be made available to the public. The City should be precluded from hiding behind a veil of secrecy in a project of such magnitude.
Further, “the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press [to issues of public concern] cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.”5 Freedom of the press must remain inviolate.

 Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936).

 DR Partners v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 116 Nev. 616, 621, 6 P.3d 465, 468 (2000) (citing Ashokan v. State, Dep’t of Ins., 109 Nev. 662, 668, 856 P.2d 244, 247 (1993) (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974) (“Whatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man’s evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.”))).

 Id.

 Id. at 622, 6 P.3d at 468 (citing Donrey cf Nevada v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 635-36, 798 P.2d 144, 147-48 (1990)).

 Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250.