Skip to content
Skip over table of contents to continue reading article

Nevada

Author

Kristen Gallagher, Esq.
Adam Hosmer-Henner, Esq.
McDonald Carano LLP
2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, NV 89102
(702) 873-4100

With special thanks to Mark A. Hinueber, Stephens Media LLC, Las Vegas, and JoNell Thomas, Las Vegas, who previously authored this chapter.

Last updated Oct. 11, 2019

Compare

Open Courts Compendium

Compare

I. Introduction: Access rights in the jurisdiction

Compare

A. The roots of access rights

Regarding criminal trials, the “presumption of an open court is firmly rooted in American jurisprudence.”  Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 849, 859, 221 P.3d 1240, 1247 (2009).

Compare

B. Overcoming a presumption of openness

“The presumption of openness may be overcome . . . only if the district court identifies a countervailing interest to public access and demonstrates, by specific findings, that closure is necessary and narrowly tailored to serve a higher interest.”  Stephens Media v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 849, 855, 221 P.3d 1240, 1245 (2009).  If the district court fails to articulate specific findings supporting closure, the Nevada Supreme Court will grant a petition seeking the reopening of proceedings. See id. (granting petition to release juror questionnaires when district court failed to make specific findings (1) demonstrating concerns regarding juror candor superseded First Amendment presumption of open proceedings and (2) demonstrating no reasonable alternative to closure).

Compare

C. Procedural prerequisites to closure

In general, the district court cannot close a trial unless the court first “identifies a countervailing interest to public access and demonstrates, by specific findings, that closure is necessary and narrowly tailored to serve a higher interest.”  Stephens Media, 125 Nev. at 855, 221 P.3d at 1245.

Although the Nevada Supreme Court previously held that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing in a criminal case, Azbill v. Fisher, 84 Nev. 414, 418, 442 P.2d 916, 918 (1968) (superseded by statute on other grounds) (noting that a preliminary hearing is “a creature of statute, and as such, the procedures are governed by statutory provisions”), the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently recognized a First Amendment right of access to certain preliminary hearings in criminal cases, indicating that Azbill is no longer good law.  See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1 (1986); El Vocero de Puerto Rico v. Puerto Rico, 508 U.S. 147 (1993); cfWaller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984).

A party may request to exclude the press from a preliminary hearing, or a magistrate may do so on his or her own.  SeeNRS § 171.204; see also Davis v. Sheriff, Clark Cty., 93 Nev. 511, 569 P.2d 402 (1977) (noting a magistrate’s refusal to conduct a closed preliminary hearing will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion).

Compare

II. Procedure for asserting right of access to proceedings and records

Compare

A. Media standing to challenge closure

In Nevada, both “the public and the press have the right to seek limited intervention in a criminal case to advance or argue constitutional claims concerning access to court proceedings.”  Stephens Media, 125 Nev. at 860, 221 P.3d at 1248.

Compare

B. Procedure for requesting access in criminal cases

A member of the press or the public may move to intervene in a criminal case to oppose closure.  See Stephens Media, 125 Nev. at 860, 221 P.3d at 1248 (holding “the public and the press have the right to seek limited intervention in a criminal case to advance or argue constitutional claims concerning access to court proceedings”).

Compare

C. Procedure for requesting access in civil matters

To obtain camera access, a media request can be submitted. See, e.g., http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/res/media/DISTRICT%20COURT%20MEDIA1.pdf.

Compare

D. Obtaining review of initial court decisions

Standard appellate rules apply to the review of initial court decisions regarding access. However, news reporters or parties do not have the right to direct appellate review of the interpretation or application of the rules regarding electronic media access in the courtroom. News reporters or parties may, however, seek extraordinary relief by way of writ petition.

Compare

III. Access to criminal proceedings

Compare

A. In general

“Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly state that the press or the public have a right to access criminal trials, the presumption of an open court is firmly rooted in American jurisprudence.” Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 849, 859, 221 P.3d 1240, 1247 (2009) (holding that the “public and the press have the right to seek limited intervention in a criminal case to advance or argue constitutional claims concerning access to court proceedings”).

Compare

B. Pretrial proceedings

No relevant authority.

Compare

C. Criminal trials

The Nevada Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment presumption of public access applies to juror questionnaires used in the jury selection process.  Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 849, 855, 221 P.3d 1240, 1245 (2009).

Compare

D. Post-trial proceedings

No relevant authority.

Compare

E. Appellate proceedings

To photograph or film appellate proceedings, permission must be submitted in writing 24 hours prior to the hearing to Elizabeth Brown, Clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court. Fax your request on letterhead to (775) 684-1601 and/or send your request to: 201 South Carson Street, Suite 250, Carson City, NV 89701-4702. Additionally, call the Clerk at (775) 684-1600 or (702) 486-9300 to notify the Court of your request.

Compare

IV. Access to criminal court records

Compare

A. In general

            All criminal court records are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal all records related to an arrest or a conviction.

Compare

B. Arrest records

            Arrest records are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal records related to an arrest.

Compare

C. Dockets

Criminal dockets are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal docket entries related to an arrest.

Compare

Compare

E. Discovery materials

Exhibits in criminal cases are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal any such exhibits.

Compare

F. Pretrial motions and records

If an indictment is found or accusation presented, then the court reporter shall deliver a certified copy of the transcript to the county clerk. Upon the filing of this transcript, the transcript and any related physical evidence exhibited to the grand jury become a matter of public record unless the court: “(a) Orders that the presentment or indictment remain secret until the defendant is in custody or has been given bail; or (b) Upon motion, orders the transcript and evidence to remain secret until further order of the court.” NRS § 172.225.

Compare

G. Trial records

Criminal trial records are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal criminal trial records.

Compare

H. Post-trial records

Criminal post-trial records are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal post-criminal trial records.

Compare

I. Appellate records

Appellate records are constitutionally open to the public unless sealed. Pursuant to NRS Chapter 179, a person may petition the court to seal criminal appellate records.

Compare

J. Other criminal court records issues

Compare

V. Access to civil proceedings

Compare

A. In general

The Nevada Supreme Court has recognized that the public has a right to access proceedings in civil cases under state law and the U.S. Constitution.  See Del Papa v. Steffen, 112 Nev. 369, 374, 915 P.2d 245, 248 (1996).

NRS § 1.090 provides that “[t]he sitting of every court of justice shall be public except as otherwise provided by law. . .” Id. (emphasis added).  The term “court of justice” is defined to mean the Nevada Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the districts courts, justice courts, and such municipal courts as may from time to time be established by the legislature in incorporated cities or towns.  NRS 1.010.

In Steffen, the Nevada Supreme Court invalidated confidentiality orders arising from judicial disciplinary proceedings, holding that the orders implicated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The Court held that a state may only deny the public’s right of access in civil proceedings if it shows that the denial is necessitated by a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  Steffen, 112 Nev. at 374 (1996) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 607 (1982)).

The Nevada Supreme Court has enacted rules governing electronic coverage of court proceedings.  S.C.R. 229-246.  Under these rules, there is a presumption that all courtroom proceedings that are open to the public are subject to electronic coverage.  S.C.R. 230(2).

Compare

B. Pre-trial proceedings

Compare

C. Trials

Rule 77(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

“All trials upon the merits shall be conducted in open court and so far as convenient in a regular court room, except private trial may be had as provided by statute. All other acts or proceedings may be done or conducted by a judge in chambers, without the attendance of the clerk or other court officials and at any place either within or without the district; but no hearing, other than one ex parte, shall be conducted outside the district without the consent of all parties affected thereby.” (emphasis added).

Rule 43(a) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: “In every trial, the testimony of witnesses shall be taken in open court, unless otherwise provided by these rules or by statute. The court may, for good cause shown in compelling circumstances and upon appropriate safeguards, permit presentation of testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.”

Compare

D. Post-trial proceedings

Following the close of evidence in a bench trial, if the court does not prepare a memorandum of decision setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court must orally state its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which must be recorded in open court under Rule 52 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.

Compare

E. Appellate proceedings

Compare

VI. Access to civil records

Compare

A. In general

The Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records promulgated by the Nevada Supreme Court provide that “[a]ll court records in civil actions are available to the public, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”  SRCR 1(3). For purposes of this rule, the term “court record” includes, but is not limited to any document, information, exhibit, or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding; and any index, calendar, docket, register of actions, official record of the proceedings, order, decree, judgment, minute, and any information in a case management system created or prepared by the court that is related to a judicial proceeding.  SRCR 2(2).

The Nevada Supreme Court has also recognized that a common law right to inspect public records exists under certain circumstances.  See, e.g., Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873 (2011); Howard v. State, 128 Nev. 736 (2012); Civil Rights for Seniors v. AOC, 129 Nev. 752 (2013).

The Nevada Supreme Court has not decided whether the judiciary is a governmental entity subject to the Nevada Public Records Act.  See Civil Rights for Seniors v. AOC, 129 Nev. 752 (2013).

Compare

B. Dockets

The Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records provide:

“Under no circumstances shall the court seal an entire court file. An order entered under these rules must, at a minimum, require that the following information is available for public viewing on court indices: (i) the case number(s) or docket code(s) or number(s); (ii) the date that the action was commenced; (iii) the names of the parties, counsel of record, and the assigned judge; (iv) the notation “case sealed”; (v) the case type and cause(s) of action, which may be obtained from the Civil Cover Sheet; (vi) the order to seal and written findings supporting the order; and (vii) the identity of the party or other person who filed the motion to seal.”

SRCR 3(5)(c) (emphasis added).

Compare

C. Discovery materials

Compare

D. Pre-trial motions and records

Pretrial motions and records are presumed open unless sealed by the court. The Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records promulgated by the Nevada Supreme Court provide that “[a]ll court records in civil actions are available to the public, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”  SRCR 1(3).   For purposes of this rule, the term “court record” includes, but is not limited to any document, information, exhibit, or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding; and any index, calendar, docket, register of actions, official record of the proceedings, order, decree, judgment, minute, and any information in a case management system created or prepared by the court that is related to a judicial proceeding.  SRCR 2(2).

Compare

E. Trial records

Trial records are presumed open unless sealed by the court. The Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records promulgated by the Nevada Supreme Court provide that “[a]ll court records in civil actions are available to the public, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”  SRCR 1(3).   For purposes of this rule, the term “court record” includes, but is not limited to any document, information, exhibit, or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding; and any index, calendar, docket, register of actions, official record of the proceedings, order, decree, judgment, minute, and any information in a case management system created or prepared by the court that is related to a judicial proceeding.  SRCR 2(2).

Compare

F. Settlement records

Provided that settlement records do not have the effect of concealing a public hazard, a court may seal records which contain confidential terms of a settlement agreement of the parties.  SRCR 3(4)-(5); cf. Civil Rights for Seniors v. AOC, 129 Nev. 752, 313 P.3d 216 (2013) (holding that Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP) records are not subject to disclosure); 2013 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 08 (Dec. 27, 2013) (reports submitted to Board of Medical examiners which contain confidential civil malpractice settlement amounts are public records which must be open to public inspection).

Compare

G. Post-trial records

Post-trial records are presumed open unless sealed by the court. The Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records promulgated by the Nevada Supreme Court provide that “[a]ll court records in civil actions are available to the public, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”  SRCR 1(3).   For purposes of this rule, the term “court record” includes, but is not limited to any document, information, exhibit, or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding; and any index, calendar, docket, register of actions, official record of the proceedings, order, decree, judgment, minute, and any information in a case management system created or prepared by the court that is related to a judicial proceeding.  SRCR 2(2).

Compare

H. Appellate records

A civil court record or any portion of it that was sealed in the trial court shall be made available to the Nevada Supreme Court in the event of an appeal. Court records sealed in the trial court shall be sealed from public access in the Nevada Supreme Court subject to further order of that court. SRCR 7.

All events and actions taken in administrative matters or in the preparation and circulation of draft opinions or orders, bench memoranda, and memoranda and correspondence between chambers or staff concerning pending cases shall be confidential, as shall the events, actions, and votes that are taken at any draft or post-argument conference. The contents of orders or opinions shall remain confidential until filed by the clerk of the court and released to the public.

Compare

I. Other civil court records issues

A gag order which prevents the parties from disclosing any documents related to their case may violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Johanson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 124 Nev. 245, 251 (2008).  “A district court may enter a gag order only when: (1) the activity restrained poses either a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest, (2) the order is narrowly drawn, and (3) less restrictive alternatives are not available.”  Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Compare

VII. Jury and grand jury access

Compare

A. Access to voir dire

Nevada generally follows the “historic tradition of open and oral voir dire proceedings.” Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 125 Nev. 849, 865, 221 P.3d 1240, 1251 (2009).  District courts are required to satisfy the Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside County, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) balancing test requiring it to make specific findings to support a denial of access to voir dire.  Stephens Media, 125 Nev. at 866, 221 P.3d at 1252.

Compare

B. Juror identities, questionnaires and other records

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment’s qualified right of access extends to juror questionnaires prepared in anticipation of oral voir dire.  Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 125 Nev. 849, 861, 221 P.3d 1240, 1249 (2009).  District courts are required to satisfy the Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct., 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) balancing test that it make specific findings to support a denial of access to juror questionnaires.  Stephens Media, 125 Nev. at 866, 221 P.3d at 1252.

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a trial court may, in its discretion, empanel an anonymous jury, though the court recognized that this is “an unusual measure” and “caution[ed] that a district court should employ such a measure only after careful consideration of the competing individual and institutional interests at stake.”  Menendez-Cordero v. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, 445 P.3d 1235, 1238–39 (2019).  The Supreme Court adopted the following rule:

“The trial court may empanel an anonymous jury where (1) there is a strong reason for concluding that it is necessary to enable the jury to perform its factfinding function, or to ensure juror protection; and (2) reasonable safeguards are adopted by the trial court to minimize any risk of infringement upon the fundamental rights of the accused.”

Id.

Compare

C. Grand jury proceedings and records

Nevada statutes restrict who may be present when a grand jury is in session.

NRS § 172.235—Who may be present when grand jury is in session:

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the following persons may be present while the grand jury is in session:

(a) The district attorney;

(b) A witness who is testifying;

(c) An attorney who is accompanying a witness pursuant to NRS 172.239;

(d) Any interpreter who is needed;

(e) The certified court reporter who is taking stenographic notes of the proceeding;

(f) Any person who is engaged by the grand jury pursuant to NRS 172.205; and

(g) Any other person requested by the grand jury to be present.

2.  No person other than the jurors may be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting.

Grand jury proceedings are deemed secret and only limited disclosures are permitted under NRS § 172.245:

1.  The disclosure of:

(a) Evidence presented to the grand jury;

(b) Information obtained by the grand jury;

(c) The results of an investigation made by the grand jury; and

(d) An event occurring or a statement made in the presence of the grand jury other than its deliberations and the vote of a juror, may be made to the district attorney for use in the performance of the district attorney’s duties.

2.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the Attorney General or a member of the Attorney General’s staff, a grand juror, district attorney or member of the district attorney’s staff, peace officer, clerk, stenographer, interpreter, witness or other person invited or allowed to attend the proceedings of a grand jury shall not disclose:

(a) Evidence presented to the grand jury;

(b) An event occurring or a statement made in the presence of the grand jury;

(c) Information obtained by the grand jury; or

(d) The results of an investigation made by the grand jury.

3.  A person may disclose his or her knowledge concerning the proceedings of a grand jury:

(a) When so directed by the court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(b) When permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the presentment or indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury;

(c) If the person was a witness before the grand jury and is disclosing his or her     knowledge of the proceedings to the person’s own attorney; or

(d) As provided in NRS 172.225.

Under NRS § 172.225(6), grand jury transcripts become public as follows:

6.  Upon the filing of such a transcript with the county clerk, the transcript and any related physical evidence exhibited to the grand jury become a matter of public record unless the court:

(a) Orders that the presentment or indictment remain secret until the defendant is in custody or has been given bail; or

(b) Upon motion, orders the transcript and evidence to remain secret until further order of the court.

Compare

D. Interviewing jurors

Compare

VIII. Proceedings involving minors

Compare

A. Delinquency

Delinquency proceedings are governed by NRS § 62D.010(2):

Manner for conducting proceedings; proceeding open to public; exception.

2.  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, each proceeding conducted pursuant to the provisions of this title must be open to the public. If the juvenile court determines that all or part of the proceeding must be closed to the public because the closure is in the best interests of the child or the public:

(a) The public must be excluded; and

(b) The juvenile court may order that only those persons who have a direct interest in the case may be admitted. The juvenile court may determine that a victim or any member of the victim’s family is a person who has a direct interest in the case and may be admitted.

Compare

B. Dependency

Dependency proceedings are generally open, but closure is permitted in certain circumstances, so long as the judge makes specific findings and determines that such closure is in the best interests of the child involved in the proceedings.  See NRS § 432B.430.

Compare

C. Other proceedings involving minors

Family court matters involving child custody necessarily involve minors.  Pursuant to NRS § 125C.004, a court “may exclude the public from any hearing” concerning custody to a person other than a parent.

Compare

D. Prohibitions on photographing or identifying juveniles

Compare

E. Minor testimony in non-juvenile courts

Nevada has enacted the Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act, NRS § 50.500 et seq., which provides certain protections for child witnesses under the age of 14 years in criminal or noncriminal proceedings.  Additionally, in custody proceedings, Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.215 governs child witnesses.

Further, local court rules may limit or prohibit minors’ testimony or attendance.  For example, the Eighth Judicial District Court Rules governing Family Division Matters; Guardianship restricts minor children’s attendance and testimony as follows:

Rule 5.06.  Minor children; appearance at courthouse.  Unless authorized in advance by a judge, master, commissioner, Family Mediation Center (FMC) specialist or Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) representative, no minor child of the parties shall be brought to the courthouse for any court hearing, trial, CASA or FMC appointment which concerns that child or the child’s parents. In exceptional cases, the judge, master or commissioner may interview minor children in chambers outside the presence of counsel and the parties. Minor children will not be permitted to testify in open court unless the judge, master, or commissioner determines that the probative value of the child’s testimony substantially outweighs the potential harm to the child. The court may impose sanctions for a willful violation of this rule by either a litigant or counsel.

Compare

IX. Special proceedings

Compare

A. Tribal Courts in the jurisdiction

Applicable rules vary by tribe. See, e.g., Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Law & Order Code § 1-50-020 (“The Clerk must maintain the confidentiality of all juvenile and domestic relations court files. Only officers of the court, parties, and persons authorized by parties shall be allowed access to court files in domestic relations and juvenile cases. All other court files are open to the members of the Tribe, court personnel, and parties to a lawsuit.”); id. at § 1-60 (“Court files on a particular case are generally open to tribal members. Only the parties and persons authorized by the parties, the tribal judges, or the tribal clerk may inspect the records of a juvenile or domestic relations case and obtain copies of documents included therein. b. Authorized persons may inspect files only during the ordinary working hours of the clerk or the judge, to insure the integrity of court records.”).

Compare

B. Probate

Probate cases follow the general civil rules, discussed in “Access to civil proceedings” above.

Compare

C. Competency and commitment proceedings

Courts are required to “seal all court records relating to the admission and treatment of any person who was admitted, voluntarily or as the result of a noncriminal proceeding, to a public or private hospital, a mental health facility or a program of community-based or outpatient services in this State for the purpose of obtaining mental health treatment.” NRS § 433A.715.

Compare

D. Attorney and judicial discipline

All proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by an attorney shall be kept confidential until the filing of a formal complaint. All participants in a proceeding, including anyone connected with it, shall conduct themselves so as to maintain the confidentiality of the proceeding until a formal complaint is filed. In the event no formal complaint is filed, the disciplinary proceeding shall become public upon its conclusion, whether by dismissal or otherwise. S.C.R. 121.

Compare

E. Immigration proceedings

Compare

F. Other proceedings

Compare

X. Restrictions on participants in litigation

Compare

A. Media standing to challenge third-party gag orders

District courts have permitted representatives of the media to challenge third-party gag orders but there is no precedent from the Nevada Supreme Court on this subject.

Compare

B. Gag orders on the press

District courts have issued gag orders on the press related to pending cases. Las Vegas Review-Journal v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for Cty. of Clark, 412 P.3d 23, 26 (Nev. 2018) (noting that a prior restraint or “gag” order is only justified when “(1) the activity restrained poses either a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest, (2) the order is narrowly drawn, and (3) less restrictive alternatives are not available”) (internal quotations omitted).

Compare

C. Gag orders on participants

District courts have issued gag orders on the parties and their attorneys in pending cases. Las Vegas Review-Journal v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for Cty. of Clark, 412 P.3d 23, 26 (Nev. 2018) (noting that a prior restraint or “gag” order is only justified when “(1) the activity restrained poses either a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest, (2) the order is narrowly drawn, and (3) less restrictive alternatives are not available”) (internal quotations omitted).

Compare

D. Interviewing judges

Judges are prevented from making any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, Judicial Canon 2.10. Furthermore, a judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. Id.

Compare

XI. Other issues

Compare

A. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access

Nevada is guided by the principle that “open court proceedings assure that proceedings are conducted fairly and discourage perjury, misconduct by participants, and biased decision making.”  Del Papa v. Steffen, 112 Nev. 369, 374, 915 P.2d 245, 249 (1996).  There is a presumption favoring public access to judicial records and documents which is only overcome when the party requesting the sealing of a record or document under Nevada’s sealing and redacting rules demonstrates that “the public right of access is outweighed by a significant competing interest.”  Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 11, 318 P.3d 1078, 1085 (2014); SRCR 1, et seq. (applying to civil cases, with certain exceptions); Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 125 Nev. 849, 860, 221 P.3d 1240, 1248 (2009) (holding that “the public and the press have the right to seek limited intervention in a criminal case to advance or argue constitutional claims concerning access to court proceedings.”).

Thus, before a trial court can exclude the public from trial proceedings, the following requirements must be met: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect [the overriding] interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and (4) “the trial court must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Feazell v. State, 111 Nev. 1446, 1448, 906 P.2d 727, 729 (1995).

Compare

B. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

With permission obtained in accordance with the Nevada Supreme Court Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings, matters that are open to the public are subject to electronic coverage. Nevada Supreme Court Rule (“S.C.R.”) 230(2) provides:

“[T]here is a presumption that all courtroom proceedings that are open to the public are subject to electronic coverage. A judge shall make particularized findings on the record when determining whether electronic coverage will be allowed at a proceeding, in whole or in part. Specifically, the judge shall consider the following factors:

(a) The impact of coverage upon the right of any party to a fair trial;

(b) The impact of coverage upon the right of privacy of any party or witness;

(c) The impact of coverage upon the safety and well-being of any party, witness or juror;

(d) The likelihood that coverage would distract participants or would detract from the dignity of the proceedings;

(e) The adequacy of the physical facilities of the court for coverage; and

(f) Any other factor affecting the fair administration of justice.”

See also Solid v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State in & for Cty. of Clark, 393 P.3d 666, 672 (Nev. 2017).  The rules further define “electronic coverage” to mean “broadcasting, televising, recording or taking photographs by any means, including but not limited to video cameras, still cameras, cellular phones with photographic or recording capabilities or computers. S.C.R. 229(1)(d).

S.C.R. 230(1) requires:

1. News reporters desiring permission to provide electronic coverage of a proceeding in the courtroom shall file a written request with the judge at least 24 hours before the proceeding commences, however, the judge may grant such a request on shorter notice or waive the requirement for a written request. The attorneys of record shall be notified by the court administrator or by the clerk of the court of the filing of any such request by a news reporter. The written order of the judge granting or denying access by a news reporter to a proceeding shall be made a part of the record of the proceedings.

But the Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings “do not govern the coverage of a proceeding by a news reporter who is not using a camera or electronic equipment.”  S.C.R. 229(2)(a).  Further, “[e]xcept as provided by these rules, the use of cameras, cellular phones or other electronic devices to photograph or record courtroom proceedings without the express permission of the judge is prohibited.”  S.C.R. 229(2)(b).

The Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings set forth the following limitations:

• Limitations (personnel), S.C.R. 237:

“Operation of video or still cameras in the courtroom will be allowed only for news reporters designated by the pool coordinator or by the court pursuant to these rules.”

• Limitations (jury), S.C.R. 238:

“1. Requirements of sequestration of the jury. In any case where a jury has been impanelled, such jury shall not be sequestered solely because of any activity authorized by these guidelines. This rule does not affect the authority of the judge to order sequestration for any other lawful purpose.

2. Photography of jury. Consent of the jury shall not be required. News reporters will not deliberately photograph the jury or individual jurors. However, it is recognized that, because of the physical layout of some courtrooms and the general trial activity in any courtroom, it may be impossible not to photograph some jurors as part of the proceedings. To the extent possible, news reporters shall locate and focus their equipment in such a manner as to minimize photographs of the jury.

3. News reporters shall not deliberately photograph the jury or individual jurors during the pendency of the proceeding. News reporters or news organizations who violate this provision may be excluded from further participation in electronic news coverage authorized in these rules.”

• Limitations (conferences of counsel), S.C.R. 239:

“Camera coverage shall be limited to proceedings open to the public. In order to protect the attorney/client privilege and the right to effective assistance of counsel, news reporters shall not record or broadcast by audio or video transmission the content of any privileged conference, including, but not limited to, conferences occurring between attorneys and their clients, between attorneys, between clients or between or among attorneys, their clients and the judge when the judge calls for a colloquy at the bench.”

• Limitations (consent of parties), S.C.R. 240:

“1. Consent of participants. The consent of participants to coverage is not required. The judge, however, in the exercise of sound discretion, may prohibit the filming or photographing of any participant who does not consent to being filmed or photographed. This is in recognition of the authority reposing in the judge, upon the exercise of sound discretion, to hold certain judicial proceedings, or portions thereof in camera and in recognition of the fact that certain proceedings or portions thereof are made confidential by law. This provision does not apply to jurors during the pendency of the proceeding as they are covered elsewhere in these rules.

2. Consent not to be given for payment. No witness, juror or party shall give consent to coverage for any payment, of any kind or character, either directly or indirectly.”

• Limitations (use of broadcast material), S.C.R. 241:

“1. Video, photography or audio reproductions may only be used for educational or informational purposes, and may not be used for unrelated advertising purposes.

2. Official record. The official court record of any proceeding is the transcript of the original notes of the court reporter or court recorder made in open court. Videos, photographs or audio reproductions made in a court proceeding as a result of these rules shall not be considered as part of the official court record.”

• Limitations (restricted access), S.C.R. 242:

“1. Court discretion. During the conduct of any proceeding at which the print media is ordered by the judge to be excluded, all other types of news reporters shall also be excluded.

2. News reporters shall have no greater rights of access than the public.

3. Audio or visual equipment authorized by these rules must not be operated during a recess in a court proceeding unless otherwise approved by the judge, with notice to counsel.”

There are additional requirements concerning the number of camera persons and still photographers permitted, the use of a single audio system, and placement of equipment in the courtroom.  The Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings can be found in S.C.R. 229-246.

Compare

C. Tips for covering courts in the jurisdiction

It is suggested that in addition to following the requirements of the Nevada Supreme Court’s Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings (S.C.R. 229-246), reporters check with posted court department guidelines regarding protocol and other preferences and requirements specific to each judge. This information can generally be obtained by visiting the judges page on district courts’ websites.

Compare