Tag: NRCP 26

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 28, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 28, 2020

Shoen v. State Bar of Nev.

  • May a suspended attorney apply for reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule 116(2) (SCR) even if he or she has not yet satisfied requirements imposed in a disciplinary order as a condition precedent to applying for reinstatement.

Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

  • Is there a fiduciary exception to the attorney client privilege, whereby a fiduciary such as a trustee is prohibited from asserting the attorney client privilege against a beneficiary on matters of trust administration.

Rock Springs Mesquite II v. Raridan

  • Can a jury instruction be used to obtain actions for declaratory relief.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

 

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 14, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 14, 2020

Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Sekera)

  • What is the proper process courts must use when determining the scope of discovery under NRCP 26.
  • How should a court determine whether a protective order should be issued for good cause under NRCP 26.

City of Henderson v. Spangler

  • When does hearing loss constitute a compensable injury by accident under NRS Chapters 616A-D.
  • When does hearing loss constitute a compensable occupational disease under NRS Chapter 617.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 3, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 3, 2018

DOLORES VS. STATE, DEP’T OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. DIV.

  • Is submitting a resignation when faced with a resign-or-be-fired option a voluntary resignation under NRS 612.380, thereby disqualifying an individual from unemployment benefits.

LAS VEGAS DEV. GRP., LLC VS. BLAHA

  • Do the time limitations in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) (2010) bar an action challenging an NRS Chapter 107 nonjudicial foreclosure where it is alleged that the deed of trust had been extinguished before the sale.

COTTER, JR. VS. DIST. CT. (COTTER)

  • Do documents disclosed to third parties constitute waiver of the work-product privilege.

MEI-GSR HOLDINGS, LLC VS. PEPPERMILL CASINOS, INC.

  • Does NRS 600A.030, Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), preclude a defendant from demonstrating that certain information is readily ascertainable and not a trade secret even though the defendant acquired the information through improper means.

FITZGERALD VS. MOBILE BILLBOARDS, LLC

  • Were allegedly defamatory statements made by an employer regarding an employee’s alleged abuse of the workers’ compensation program to obtain prescription pain medication, a violation of NRS 616D.300, absolutely privileged.

IN RE: MATTER OF E.R. C/W 73198

  • Does a familial placement preference survive the termination of parental rights.

COLEMAN (SOLOMON) VS. STATE

  • Does NRS 200.604 prohibit a person from copying, without permission, a consensually recorded video depicting sexual acts.

MORGAN (JOHN) VS. STATE

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 12, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 12, 2018

CAIN VS. PRICE C/W 69889/70864

  • Does one party’s material breach of a contract release the non-breaching party’s contractual obligation to a third-party beneficiary.

U.S. HOME CORP. VS. THE MICHAEL BALLESTEROS TRUST

  • Does the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) govern the arbitration agreement contained in a common-interest community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

CLARK CTY. OFFICE OF THE CORONER/MED. EXAM’R VS. LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL

  • Is a local government entity that moved for a stay under NRCP 62, entitled to a stay of a money judgment without bond or other security.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

When is a document not discoverable because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger
work product

Wynn Resorts, LTD. vs. Dist. Ct. (Okada) (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Jul. 27, 2017)

The issue is under what circumstances is work performed “in anticipation of litigation” so that it is protected by the work-product privilege and not discoverable.

Okada owned approximately half of Wynn Resorts’ stock through Aruze USA, Inc., of which he was the principal. Okada also served on Wynn Resorts’ board of directors (the Board). Wynn Resorts alleged that it developed concerns about the suitability of Aruze, Okada, and Aruze’s parent corporation, Universal Entertainment Corp. (collectively, the “Okada Parties”), as shareholders of Wynn Resorts after Okada began developing a casino resort in the Philippines. In particular, the Board asserted that it believed that Aruze’s continued ownership of its stock could put Wynn Resorts’ gaming licenses at risk.

The Board conducted an investigation over several years into the business climate in the Philippines and Okada’s involvement there. The Board alleged it ultimately determined that any involvement by Okada in the Philippines was ill advised; however, Okada advised the Board that he was proceeding with his project in the Philippines.

The Board hired former federal judge and FBI director Louis J. Freeh and his firm (the Freeh Group) to investigate and report on Okada’s business in the Philippines. The Freeh Group’s letter of engagement indicated that the Freeh Group was hired as legal counsel to investigate Okada and present its findings to the Board in order to determine if Okada’s activities violated Wynn Resorts’ policies and potentially placed Wynn Resorts’ gaming licenses in jeopardy.

Continue reading “When is a document not discoverable because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation?” →