Court Opinion

ID: 9912967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 16:37:45.51064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:33.924483
License: Public Domain

136 Nev., Advance Opinion 21.0
                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                   VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, LLC, A                     No. 79689-COA
                   NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
                   COMPANY; AND LAS VEGAS SANDS,
                   LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
                   COMPANY,
                   Petitioners,
                   vs.
                                                                           FIED
                   THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT                            MAY 1 4 2020
                   COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
                                                                        ELIZABETH & BROWN
                   IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF                           CLERK i• SUPREME COURT

                   CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE                           BY   sal   p...
                                                                                   LERK
                   KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT
                   JUDGE,
                   Respondents,
                     and
                   JOYCE SEKERA, AN INDIVIDUAL,
                   Real Party in Interest.

                               Original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition
                   challenging a district court order requiring petitioners to produce
                   unredacted prior incident reports in discovery and refusing to impose
                   requested protections related to those reports.
                               Petition granted.

                   Royal & Miles LLP and Gregory A. Miles and Michael A. Royal, Henderson,
                   for Petitioners.

                   The Galliher Law Firm and Keith E. Galliher, Jr., Las Vegas,
                   for Real Party in Interest.

COURT OF APPEALS
      OF
    NEVADA

i0) 1947H AND                                                                           -1W21
BEFORE GIBBONS, C.J., and TAO, J.1

                                 OPINION

By the Court, GIBBONS, C.J.;
            The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended,
including significant portions of NRCP 26—the seminal rule governing
discovery. These amendments have changed the analysis that district
courts must conduct. In this writ proceeding, we discuss the proper process
courts must use when determining the scope of discovery under NRCP
26(b)(1). We also provide a framework for courts to apply when determining
whether a protective order should be issued for good cause under NRCP
26(c)(1). Because respondents did not engage in this process or use the
framework we are providing, we grant the petition and direct further
proceedings.
                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
            Real party in interest, Joyce Sekera, allegedly slipped and fell
on the Venetian Casino Resores marble flooring and was seriously injured.
During discovery, Sekera requested that the Venetian produce incident
reports relating to slip and falls on the marble flooring for the three years
preceding her injury to the date of the request. In response, the Venetian
provided 64 incident reports that disclosed the date, time, and
circumstances of the various incidents. However, the Venetian redacted the

      1The Honorable Bonnie A. Bulla, Judge, voluntarily recused herself
from participation in the decision of this matter. In her place, the
Honorable Michael L. Douglas, Senior Justice, was appointed to participate
in the decision of this matter under an order of assignment entered on
February 13, 2020. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 19(1)(c); SCR 10. Subsequently,
that order was withdrawn.

                                     2
                   personal information of injured parties from the reports, including names,
                   addresses, phone numbers, medical information, and any social security
                   numbers collected. Sekera insisted on receiving the unredacted reports in
                   order to gather information to prove that it was foreseeable that future
                   patrons could slip and fall on the marble flooring and that the Venetian was
                   on notice of a dangerous condition.2 Further, Sekera wanted to contact
                   potential witnesses to gather information to show that she was not
                   comparatively negligent, as the Venetian asserted. Sekera's counsel
                   disseminated all 64 redacted reports to other plaintiffs counsel in different
                   cases, who also were engaged in litigation against the Venetian for slip and
                   fall injuries.
                                Unable to resolve their differences regarding redaction, the
                   Venetian moved for a protective order, which Sekera opposed. The
                   discovery commissioner found that there was a legitimate privacy issue and
                   recommended that the court grant the protective order, such that the
                   reports remain redacted, and prevented Sekera from sharhig the reports
                   outside of the current litigation. The commissioner further recommended,
                   however, that after Sekera reviewed the 64 redacted reports and identified
                   substantially similar accidents that occurred in the same location as her
                   fall, the parties could have a dispute resolution conference pursuant to
                   EDCR 2.34. At that conference, the parties would have the opportunity to
                   reach an agreement to allow disclosure of the persons involved in the
                   previous similar accidents. If the parties failed to reach an agreement,
                   Sekera could file an appropriate motion.

                         2Sekera agreed that any social security numbers should remain
                   redacted.
COURT OF APPEALS
       OF
    NEVADA
                                                        3
40) 19479 algreP
                                Sekera objected to the discovery commissioner's
                   recommendation. The district court agreed with the objection and rejected
                   the discovery commissioner's recommendation in its entirety, thereby
                   denying the motion for a protective order. The district court concluded
                   (1) there was no legal basis to preclude Sekera from knowing the identity of
                   the persons involved in the prior incidents, as this information was relevant
                   discovery material, and (2) there was no legal basis to prevent the disclosure
                   of the unredacted reports to third parties not involved in the Sekera
                   litigation. Nevertheless, the court strongly cautioned Sekera to be careful
                   with how she shared and used the information.
                                The Venetian filed the instant petition for writ relief, which was
                   transferred to this court pursuant to NRAP 17. We subsequently granted a
                   stay of the district court's order pending resolution of this petition.
                                                 DISCUSSION
                   Writ consideration is appropriate
                              This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.
                   Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4(1). But '[t] he decision to entertain a writ petition lies
                   solely within the discretion of the appellate courts. Quinn v. Eighth
                   Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. 25, 28, 410 P.3d 984, 987 (2018). "A writ of
                   mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law
                   requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion."
                   Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 791, 312 P.3d 484,
                   486 (2013). Writ relief is not appropriate where a "plain, speedy, and
                   adequate remedy" at law exists. Id. "A writ of mandamus may be issued to
                   compel the district court to vacate or modify a discovery order."3 Valley

                         3We recognize that writs of prohibition are typically more appropriate
                   for the prevention of improper discovery. See, e.g., Club Vista Fin. Servs. v.
COURT OF APPEALS
       OF
    NEVADA
                                                           4
0) 1947B    .400
                   Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d
                   676, 678 (2011).
                               Here, if the discovery order by the district court remained in
                   effect, a later appeal would not effectively remedy any improper disclosure
                   of the Venetian's guests private information. Because we conclude that the
                   Venetian has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, we exercise our
                   discretion to entertain the merits of this petition. NRS 34.170.
                   The district court should have considered proportionality under NRCP
                   26(b)(1)
                               The Venetian argues that the district court abused its
                   discretion when it did not consider and apply proportionality under NRCP
                   26(b)(1) prior to allowing the discovery.4 Sekera argues that other courts

                   Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev.. 224, 228 n.6, 276 P.3d 246, 249 n.6
                   (2012). A writ of prohibition is the "proper remedy to restrain a district
                   judge from exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its
                   jurisdiction." Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818
                   P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see also NRS 34.320. Here, we are not concluding that
                   the district court's discovery order was outside its jurisdiction. Instead, we
                   are (1) compelling the district court to perform the analysis that the law
                   requires and (2) controlling an arbitrary exercise of discretion. Thus,
                   mandamus relief is more appropriate, and we deny the Venetian's
                   alternative request for a writ of prohibition.
                         4The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective
                   March 1, 2019. See In re Creating a Comm. to Update & Revise the Nev.
                   Rules of Civil Procedure, ADKT 0522 (Order Amending the Rules of Civil
                   Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Nevada Electronic
                   Filing and Conversion Rules, December 31, 2018) ("[T]his amendment to
                   the [NRCP] shall be effective prospectively on March 1, 2019, as to all
                   pending cases and cases initiated after that date."). Thus, we cite and apply
                   the current version of Rule 26 because the motions and hearings before the
                   district court judge, and the resulting orders at issue in this writ petition,
                   all occurred after March 1, 2019.

COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                         5
(0) 1947B
                    have found the information at stake here to be discoverable under rules
                    similar to NRCP 26(b)(1).5 We agree with the Venetian.
                                  Generally, Id]iscovery matters are within the district court's
                    sound discretion, and we will not disturb a district court's ruling regarding
                    discovery unless the court has clearly abused its discretion." Club Vista,
                    128 Nev. at 228, 276 P.3d at 249. NRCP 26(b)(1) defines and places
                    limitations on the scope of discovery:
                                Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
                                nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
                                claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of
                                the case, considering the importance of the issues
                                at stake in the action, the amount in controversy,
                                the parties relative access to relevant information,
                                the parties' resources, the importance of the
                                discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
                                burden or expense of the proposed discovery
                                outweighs its likely benefit.
                    NRCP 26(b)(1). Further, lilnformation within this scope of discovery need
                    not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." Id.
                                Here, the district court identified only relevance at the hearing
                    and in its order as the legal basis to deny the protective order. Specifically,
                    the court stated at the hearing that the information was relevant to show

                          5The authority cited by Sekera is unpersuasive, as the cases do not
                    consider proportionality as required by the newly adopted amendments to
                    NRCP 26(b)(1). However, we emphasize that our opinion does not stand for
                    the proposition that the information at stake here is not proportional to the
                    needs of the case and thus not discoverable. Rather, we hold that the
                    district court must conduct the proper analysis under the current version of
                    NRCP 26(b)(1) and consider both relevance and proportionality together as
                    the plain language of the rule requires.

Count or APPEALS
       Of
     NEVADA
                                                          6
(0) 19470   4614.
notice and foreseeability.6 Problematically, the district court did not
undertake any analysis of proportionality as required by the new rule. The
rule amendments added a consideration of proportionality to
            redefine [ ] the scope of allowable discovery
            consistent with the proportionate discovery
            provision in FRCP 26(b). As amended, [NRCP]
            26(b)(1) requires that discovery seek information
            "relevant to any party's claims or defenses and
            proportional needs of the case," departing from the
            past scope of "relevant to the subject matter
            involved in the pending action." This change allows
            the district court to eliminate redundant or
            disproportionate discovery and reduce the amount
            of discovery that may be directed to matters that
            are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry.
NRCP 26 advisory committees note to 2019 amendment; see also FRCP 26
advisory committees note to 2015 amendment ("The objective is to guard
against redundant or disproportionate discovery by giving the court
authority to reduce the amount of discovery that may be directed to matters
that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry."). When FRCP 26(b)(1) was
amended, federal district courts noted that relevance was no longer enough
for allowing discovery. In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D.
562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016) ("Relevancy alone is no longer sufficient—discovery
must also be proportional to the needs of the case."); Samsung Elecs. Am.,

      6The Venetian cites Eldorado Club, Inc. v. Graff, 78 Nev. 507, 511,
377 P.2d 174, 176 (1962), to demonstrate prior incidents are not relevant to
establish notice when it relates to a temporary condition "unless . . . the
conditions surrounding the prior occurrences have continued and
persisted." Sekera appears to have abandoned the notice and foreseeability
arguments proffered in the district court and now only argues in her
answering brief that the unredacted reports are relevant to show a lack of
comparative negligence.

                                     7
Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung, 321 F.R.D. 250, 279 (N.D. Tex. 2017)
("[Niscoverable matter must be both relevant and proportional to the needs
of the case—which are related but distinct requirements.").7
            As noted above, NRCP 26(b)(1) outlines several factors for
district courts to consider regarding proportionality:
            [(1)] the importance of the issues at stake in the
            action; [(2)] the amount in controversy; [(3)] the
            parties relative access to relevant information;
            [(4)1 the parties' resources; [(5)1 the importance of
            the discovery in resolving the issues; and [(6)]
            whether the burden or expense of the proposed
            discovery outweighs its likely benefit.8
See also In re Bard, 317 F.R.D. at 563. Upon consideration of these factors,
"a court can—and must—limit proposed discovery that it determines is not
proportional to the needs of the case . . . ." Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d
733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Co.,
312 F.R.D. 459, 468 (N.D. Tex. 2015)).
            The district court abused its discretion when it failed to analyze
proportionality in light of the revisions to NRCP 26(b)(1) and make findings
related to proportionality. Because discovery decisions are "highly fact-

      7"[I]ederal decisions involving the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provide persuasive authority" for Nevada appellate courts considering the
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Nelson v. Heer, 121 Nev. 832, 834, 122
P.3d 1252, 1253 (2005). Furthermore, the current version of the NRCP is
modeled after the federal rules. NRCP Preface, advisory committee's notes
to 2019 amendment.

      8Per the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these
factors specifically apply to proportionality. See FRCP 26 advisory
committee's note to 2015 amendment ("The present amendment restores
the proportionality factors to their original place in defining the scope of
discovery." (emphasis added)).

                                      8
                     intensive," In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir.
                     2011), and this court is not positioned to make factual determinations in the
                     first instance, we decline to do so; instead, we direct the district court to
                     engage in this analysis.9 See Ryan's Express Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Amador
                     Stage Lines, 128 Nev. 289, 299, 279 P.3d 166, 172-73 (2012).
                     The district court should have determined whether the Venetian
                     demonstrated good cause for a protective order under NRCP 26(c)(1)
                                 The Venetian sought a protective order under NRCP 26(c)(1),
                     arguing that it had good cause to obtain one. The district court determined
                     that there was no legal basis for a protective order. We disagree and
                     conclude the district court abused its discretion when it determined that it
                     had no legal basis to protect the Venetian's guests information without first
                     considering whether the Venetian demonstrated good cause for a protective
                     order based on the individual circumstances before it. As stated above,
                     discovery matters are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Club
                     Vista, 128 Nev. at 228, 276 P.3d at 249. A district court abuses its discretion
                     when it "ma [kes] neither factual findings nor legal arguments" to support
                     its decision regarding a protective order. In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate
                     Litig., 927 F.3d 919, 929 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard,
                     452 U.S. 89, 102 (1981)).

                           9Whi1e the district court abused its discretion by not considering
                     proportionality whatsoever in its order or at the hearing, the parties are
                     also responsible for determining if their discovery requests are proportional.
                     "[T]he proportionality calculation to [FRCP] 26(b)(1)" is the responsibility
                     of the court and the parties, and "does not place on the party seeking
                     discovery the burden of addressing all proportionality considerations."
                     FRCP 26, advisory committee's notes to 2015 amendment.

COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                           9
(0) 19478    at400
            NRCP 26(c)(1) articulates the standard for protective orders,
stating that " [t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense . . .           The United States Supreme Court has
interpreted the similar language of FRCP 26(c) as conferring "broad
discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate
and what degree of protection is required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,
467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). The Court continued by noting that the "trial court
is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of
the parties affected by discovery."       Id.   "The unique character of the
discovery process requires that the trial court have substantial latitude to
fashion protective orders." Id.
            The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
articulated a three-part test for conducting a good-cause analysis under
FRCP 26(c). In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d
417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). First, the district court must determine if
particularized harm would occur due to public disclosure of the information.
Id. at 424. ("As we have explained, TA road allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not

      '0Although NRCP 26(c), like its federal counterpart, applies to all
forms of discovery (including written discovery), the Nevada Supreme Court
has defined what constitutes good cause under the rule only in the context
of depositions. See Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 834, 842-
43, 359 P.3d 1106, 1112 (2015) (articulating factors for courts to consider
when determining good cause for a protective order designating the time
and place of a deposition). Therefore, Nevada courts do not have firm
guidelines to assist their determination of good cause when it comes to
written discovery.

                                     10
satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.'" (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int? Ins. Co.,
966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992))).
            Second, if the district court concludes that particularized harm
would result, then it must "balance the public and private interests to decide
whether.. . . a protective order is necessary." Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has directed federal district courts
to utilize the factors set forth in a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case,
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995), to help
them balance the private and public interests. Roman Catholic, 661 F.3d
at 424; see also Phillips v. Gen. Motors, 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002).
Glenmede sets forth the following nonmandatory and nonexhaustive list of
factors for courts to consider when determining if good cause exists:
            (1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy
            interests; (2) whether the information is being
            sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper
            purpose; (3) whether disclosure of the information
            will cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether
            confidentiality is being sought over information
            important to public health and safety; (5) whether
            the sharing of information among litigants will
            promote fairness and efficiency; (6) whether a party
            benefiting from the order of confidentiality is a
            public entity or official; and (7) whether the case
            involves issues important to the public.
56 F.3d at 483. The Glenmede court further recognized that the district
court is in the best position to determine what factors are relevant to
balancing the private and public interests in a given dispute. Id.
            Third, even if the factors balance in favor of protecting the
discovery material, "a court must still consider whether redacting portions
of the discovery material will nevertheless allow disclosure."        Roman
Catholic, 661 F.3d at 425.

                                       11
                                 The Venetian sought a protective order pursuant to NRCP
                     26(c)(1), but the district court summarily concluded that there was no legal
                     basis for issuing the protective order. It did so without analyzing whether
                     the Venetian had shown good cause pursuant to NRCP 26(c)(1).11 The
                     district court's outright conclusion that there was no legal basis for a
                     protective order and failure to conduct a good-cause analysis resulted in an
                     arbitrary exercise of discretion. NRCP 26(c)(1) grants the district court
                     authority to craft a protective order that meets the factual demands of each
                     case if a litigant demonstrates good cause. Thus, since the court did have
                     the legal authority to enter a protective order if the Venetian had shown
                     good cause under NRCP 26(c)(1), it should have determined whether good
                     cause existed based on the facts before it.
                                 To determine good cause, we now approve of the framework
                     established by the Ninth Circuit in Roman Catholic and the factors listed
                     by the Third Circuit in Glenmede.           District courts should use that
                     framework and applicable factors, and any other relevant factors, to
                     consider whether parties have shown good cause under NRCP 26(c)(1).12 If

                           11Sekera argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
                     determining the Venetian did not show good cause. We are not convinced.
                     The fact that the district court failed to mention good cause, either in its
                     order or at the hearing, undermines Sekera's argument.

                           12Writ relief is discretionary, and in light of our disposition, we decline
                     to address the other issues argued by the parties in this original proceeding.
                     However, we note that Glenmede factors one, three, and five authorize the
                     district court to consider the ramifications of information being
                     disseminated to third parties (i.e., "whether disclosure will violate any
                     privacy interests," "whether disclosure of the information will cause a party
                     embarrassment," and "whether the sharing of information among litigants
                     will promote fairness and efficiency"). 56 F.3d at 483. Importantly, the
                     Nevada Supreme Court has recently stated that disclosing medical

COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                           12
(o) loaal)   Arta,
                     the party seeking the protective order has shown good cause, a district court
                     may issue a remedial protective order as circumstances require. See NRCP
                     26(c)(1). However, we do not determine whether the Venetian has
                     established good cause for a protective order; instead, we conclude that is a
                     matter for the district court to decide in the first instance. See Ryan's
                     Express, 128 Nev. at 299, 279 P.3d at 172.
                                                   CONCLUSION
                                 In denying the Venetian's motion for a protective order, the
                     district court abused its discretion in two ways. First, it focused solely on
                     relevancy and did not consider proportionality as required under the
                     amendments to NRCP 26(b)(1). Second, it did not conduct a good-cause
                     analysis as required by NRCP 26(c)(1). Because the district court failed to
                     conduct a full analysis, its decision was arbitrarily rendered.
                                 Thus, we grant the Venetian's petition and direct the clerk of
                     this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to
                     vacate its order denying the Venetian's motion for a protective order. The
                     district court shall conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion
                     to determine whether disclosure of the unredacted reports is relevant and
                     proportional under NRCP 26(b)(1). If disclosure is proper, the district court
                     must conduct a good-cause analysis under NRCP 26(c)(1), applying the
                     framework provided herein to determine whether the Venetian has shown
                     good cause for a protective order. If the Venetian demonstrates good cause,

                     information implicates a nontrivial privacy interest in the context of public
                     records requests. Cf. Clark Cty. Coroner v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 136
                     Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 458 P.3d 1048, 1058-59 (2020) (explaining that juvenile
                     autopsy reports implicate "nontrivial privacy interest[sr due to the social
                     and medical information they reveal, which may require redaction before
                     their release).
COURT OF APPEALS
       OF
     NEVADA
                                                          13
((J) 19471i elltio
                   the district court may issue a protective order as dictated by the
                   circumstances of this case.

                                                      Gibbons

                   I concur:

                                                 J.
                   Tao

COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                      14
40) 19478