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

Nevada

Reporters Privilege Compendium

Kristen Gallagher

Adam Hosmer-Henner

McDonald Carano LLP

2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200

Las Vegas, NV 89102

Telephone: 702-873-4100

kgallagher@mcdonaldcarano.com

ahosmerhenner@mcdonaldcarano.com

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

Compare

I. Introduction: History & Background

Nevada is often recognized as having the strongest news shield law in the country. The law confers an absolute privilege upon reporters and protects unpublished and published materials, and the confidential sources of the information, in any proceeding.

Compare

II. Authority for and source of the right

A. Shield law statute

Nevada’s news shield law is provided for under NRS 49.275:

No reporter, former reporter or editorial employee of any newspaper, periodical or press association or employee of any radio or television station may be required to disclose any published or unpublished information obtained or prepared by such person in such person's professional capacity in gathering, receiving or processing information for communication to the public, or the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceedings, trial or investigation:

1. Before any court, grand jury, coroner's inquest, jury or any officer thereof.

2. Before the legislature or any committee thereof.

3. Before any department, agency or commission of the state.

4. Before any local governing body or committee thereof, or any officer of a local government.

The Legislative history of this statute was explained in Las Vegas Sun v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 104 Nev. 508, 511-12, 761 P.2d 849, 851-52 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Diaz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000):

The legislative history behind the current shield law illustrates the legislators' concern with protecting confidentiality during and after the news gathering process. The legislature enacted the first shield law in 1969. It protected news media representatives from forced disclosure of their sources. Members of the press argued that confidential sources had to be protected from exposure to insure the free flow of information, particularly information about government corruption or mismanagement. The public, they claimed, had a right to know about such occurrences, but if sources were afraid to talk to reporters, the public's access to this valuable information would be severely restricted. Supporters of the legislation argued that if reporters could promise sources that their identities would not be revealed, sources would be more likely to give reporters information, and this would benefit the public.

The shield law was extended in 1975 to provide for former newsmen and for unpublished information. . . . The underlying rationale was the same as in 1969: serve the public interest by protecting reporters in their news gathering efforts.

(internal citations omitted).

NRS 49.385 provides for a waiver of certain statutory privileges by voluntary disclosure of confidential matters:

1. A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure of a confidential matter waives the privilege if he or his predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter.

2. This section does not apply if the disclosure is:

      • (a) Itself a privileged communication; or

      • (b) Made to an interpreter employed merely to facilitate communications.

This statute does not apply, however, to the news shield law because the statute concerns confidential communications and the shield law in NRS 49.275 protects both published and unpublished materials. Diaz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000). In distinguishing the shield law from other types of confidential communications that are waivable, the Nevada Supreme Court found that confidentiality is not the defining factor in whether the shield law exists, nor does confidentiality play a role in determining whether a reporter has waived the privilege.  Rather, the news shield statute is distinguishable because it protects all information, not just confidential information, which is obtained by a reporter in his or her capacity as a journalist and which is intended for dissemination.  Id. at 116 Nev. at 100, 993 P.2d at 58.

Compare

B. State constitutional provision

Nevada's Constitution does not have an express shield law provision. Article I, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution provides the following:

Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.

It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has considered a news shield law question under the state constitution.

Compare

C. Federal constitutional provision

It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has considered the issue of whether there is a reporter's privilege based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it seems unlikely that the court will do so in light of the statutory privilege. See Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 n.7 (2000) (“We need not address [the reporter’s] first amendment argument.”), citing Director, Dep't Prisons v. Arndt, 98 Nev. 84, 86, 640 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1982) (noting that “it is well settled that this court will not address constitutional issues unless they are requisite to the disposition of a case.").

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that there is a qualified privilege under the First Amendment. Farr v. Pitchess, 522 F.2d 464, 467-68 (9th Cir. 1975); Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993). The federal district courts in Nevada have followed the Ninth Circuit's precedent by recognizing the existence of a qualified privilege under the First Amendment. See Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., 109 F.R.D. 522, 526-27 (D. Nev. 1985). The constitutional privilege, however, is not as protective as the statutory privilege provided for by NRS 49.275. In Newton, the federal district court concluded that a television reporter would have been required to disclose information concerning his confidential sources under the qualified First Amendment privilege against disclosure of confidential sources. Id. at 527. The court applied a balancing test and found that disclosure was mandated under the constitutional privilege because the case was a libel action where the plaintiff was a public figure who had to meet the "actual malice" standard enunciated in New York Times v. Sullivan. The court found it significant that the journalist claiming the privilege was a party defendant and that the plaintiff had effectively exhausted alternative means of learning the identity of the confidential sources. Id. Nonetheless, the court found the information to be privileged under NRS 49.275 and recognized that "Nevada's press shield law provides the broadest protection to news media sources of any State shield law enacted in the United States." Id. at 529. In In re Stratosphere Corp. Securities Litigation, 183 F.R.D. 684 (D. Nev. 1999), the Magistrate discussed Shoen at 686:

Although this Court is not bound to follow Nevada law in determining whether a reporter should be compelled to disclose his or her sources, when dealing with purely federal issues of law, it should not ignore Nevada's public policy, as expressed in its statute, of providing reporters protection from divulging their sources. In writing his article for Nevada publication, clearly Mr. Di Rocco had a reasonable expectation that he would be protected by Nevada's media privilege law.

Cf. American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (D. Nev. 1998).  It should be noted, that in a civil case, a federal court would apply Nevada’s shield statute (and not the federal common law) where state law supplies the rule of decision.  Fed. R. Evid. 501; Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 109 F.R.D. 522 (D. Nev. 1985).

Compare

D. Other sources

Other than NRS 49.275, there appear to be no other sources of a reporter’s privilege within the State of Nevada.

Compare

III. Scope of protection

A. Generally

Courts and commentators have generally recognized the fact that Nevada's news shield law offers the broadest protection to news media sources of any state shield law enacted in the United States.

Compare

B. Absolute or qualified privilege

NRS 49.275 provides for an absolute privilege, for both published and unpublished information. The news shield statute is not limited to confidential sources, but includes any source. The statute protects both the information obtained and the source of the information. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000); Aspen Financial Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013).

Compare

C. Type of case

1. Civil

NRS 49.275 does not provide for a different standard for civil and criminal cases. The statute specifically refers to administrative matters, legislative hearings, other governmental proceedings, and court proceedings. As noted above, in Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that there may be certain situations where “the news shield statute may have to yield so that justice may be served,” such as where a defendants’ countervailing constitutional rights may be at issue. 116 Nev. 88, 101, 893 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).

Compare

2. Criminal

It does not appear that any written opinions have been published in criminal cases concerning application of the press shield law. As noted above, in Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court stated there may be certain situations where “the news shield statute may have to yield so that justice may be served,” such as where a defendant’s countervailing constitutional rights may be at issue. 116 Nev. 88, 101, 893 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).  A subpoena issued by the prosecution, however, would still be protected by the news shield statute and should be quashed because the State does not have any constitutional rights which would defeat application of the statute.

Compare

3. Grand jury

NRS 49.275 specifies that the privilege is applicable to grand jury proceedings. It should not be more difficult to defend against issuance of a subpoena in this context.

Compare

D. Information and/or identity of source

NRS 49.275 specifically protects the identity of a source. It also protects information that implicitly identifies a source of information.  This is protection is available for both published and nonpublished information obtained by a reporter in that person’s professional capacity.

Compare

E. Confidential and/or nonconfidential information

NRS 49.275 protects both confidential and non-confidential information.

Compare

F. Published and/or non-published material

NRS 49.275 protects both published and unpublished materials.

Compare

G. Reporter's personal observations

NRS 49.275 protects reporters who are eyewitnesses so long as they are acting as a reporter at the time of the observation. The statute protects from disclosure “any published or unpublished information obtained or prepared by [a reporter] in [his or her] professional capacity in gathering, receiving or processing information for communication to the public, or the source of any information procured or obtained by [the reporter].” Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879 (2013).  NRS 49.275.  The statute does not provide protection for information gathered in other capacities." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).

Compare

H. Media as a party

NRS 49.275 does not make any distinction between cases where the media is a party and where it is not. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).

Compare

I. Defamation actions

NRS 49.275 does not distinguish between libel cases and other cases. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It has also held that "to the extent that a plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove that a media litigant either knew that the published information was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth, an assertion of the shield statute may result in discovery sanctions." Id. at n.6.

In Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.R.D. 438 (D. Nev. 1987), the court explained that there was no exception to the privilege for defamation cases. Id. at 452. It also explained the consequences of invocation of the statute:

This is not to say, however, that all is bitter for the plaintiff. For if the defendants are allowed to invoke the Nevada reporter's privilege regarding their confidential sources, they must do so absolutely. Therefore, if the defendants choose to prove their defense through witnesses whose identities are protected by this order, the defendants will be deemed to have waived the privilege. If the defendants choose to call the confidential sources as witnesses at trial, the plaintiff will be able to probe in death as to their identity and credibility on cross-examination. In addition, if [a reporter] is questioned at trial regarding the sources for his articles, he may not respond that the information came from a 'reliable or confidential source.' Instead, if [the reporter] chooses to rely on the privilege at trial, he must do so absolutely. His responses to such a question would therefore have to be that he relies on his privilege as a reporter under Nevada law, and that he refuses to answer the question on that basis.

Id. (citations omitted).

Compare

IV. Who is covered

NRS 49.275 covers reporters, former reporters, and editorial employees of any newspaper, periodical or press association. It all applies to employees of any radio or television station. The statute does not specifically define these terms.

Compare

A. Statutory and case law definitions

1. Traditional news gatherers

a. Reporter

NRS 49.275 does not define "reporter" and there appears to be no other statute defining this term.

It should be noted that, in connection with the Nevada Supreme Court Rules on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings, which are applicable to all civil and criminal trials in Nevada, the term “news reporter” is defined as “any person who gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.”  SCR 229(1)(c); Solid v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State in & for County of Clark, 393 P.3d 666, 671 (Nev. 2017).  While there has been no authority discussing SCR 229(1)(c) to NRS 49.275, the existence of the rule should be noted.

Compare

b. Editor

NRS 49.275 does not define "editorial employee" and there appears to be no other statute defining this term.

Compare

c. News

NRS 49.275 does not define "news" and there appears to be no other statute defining this term.

Compare

d. Photo journalist

NRS 49.275 does not specifically reference photojournalists.

Compare

e. News organization/medium

NRS 49.275 specifies that the privilege is applicable to reporters, former reporters, and editorial employees of any newspaper, periodical or press association, and employees of any radio or television station. It does not provide any definitions for these terms. The privilege has been found applicable to a newspaper (as opposed to a reporter from a newspaper) and its publisher. Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Schwartz, 104 Nev. 508, 515 n.7, 761 P.2d 849, 854 n.7 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000) ("We are satisfied that the legislature meant to include newspaper publishers in its definition of 'editorial employees.'").

Compare

2. Others, including non-traditional news gatherers

The press shield law does not apply by statutory language to non-traditional news gatherers such as authors and academic researchers. The statute is not limited to professional or paid reporters.

Compare

B. Whose privilege is it?

"The privilege from compelled disclosure belongs to the journalist, not the source, who may be unidentified." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 99, 993 P.2d 50, 57 (2000).

Compare

V. Procedures for issuing and contesting subpoenas

A. What subpoena server must do

1. Service of subpoena, time

Issuance of subpoenas in criminal cases is governed by Chapter 174 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

NRS 174.305 provides, except as provided in NRS 172.195 and 174.315:

1. A subpoena must be issued by the clerk under the seal of the court. It must state the name of the court and the title, if any, of the proceeding, and must command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony at the time and place specified therein. The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed and sealed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall fill in the blanks before it is served.

2. A subpoena must be issued by a justice of the peace in a proceeding before the justice of the peace under the seal of the court.

NRS 174.315 provides:

1. A prosecuting attorney may issue subpoenas subscribed by the prosecuting attorney for witnesses within the State, in support of the prosecution or whom a grand jury may direct to appear before it, upon any investigation pending before the grand jury.

2. A prosecuting attorney or an attorney for a defendant may issue subpoenas subscribed by the issuer for:

(a) Witnesses within the State to appear before the court at which a preliminary hearing is to be held or an indictment, information or criminal complaint is to be tried.

(b) Witnesses already subpoenaed who are required to reappear in any Justice Court at any time the court is to reconvene in the same case within 60 days, and the time may be extended beyond 60 days upon good cause being shown for its extension.

3. Witnesses, whether within or outside of the State, may accept delivery of a subpoena in lieu of service, by a written or oral promise to appear given by the witness. Any person who accepts an oral promise to appear shall:

(a) Identify himself or herself to the witness by name and occupation;

(b) Make a written notation of the date when the oral promise to appear was given and the information given by the person making the oral promise to appear identifying the person as the witness subpoenaed; and

(c) Execute a certificate of service containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b).

4. A peace officer may accept delivery of a subpoena in lieu of service, via electronic means, by providing a written promise to appear that is transmitted electronically by any appropriate means, including, without limitation, by electronic mail transmitted through the official electronic mail system of the law enforcement agency which employs the peace officer.

5. A prosecuting attorney shall orally inform any witness subpoenaed as provided in subsection 1 of the general nature of the grand jury's inquiry before the witness testifies. Such a statement must be included in the transcript of the proceedings.

6. Any subpoena issued by an attorney for a defendant for a witness to appear before the court at which a preliminary hearing is to be held must be calendared by filing a motion that includes a notice of hearing setting the matter for hearing not less than 2 full judicial days after the date on which the motion is filed. A prosecuting attorney may oppose the motion orally in open court. A subpoena that is properly calendared pursuant to this subsection may be served on the witness unless the court quashes the subpoena.

NRS 174.335 provides:

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 172.139, a subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated therein.

2. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.

3. The court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time before the trial or before the time when they are to be offered in evidence and may, upon their production, permit the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys.

NRS 174.345 provides:

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 174.315 and subsection 2, a subpoena may be served by a peace officer or by any other person who is not a party and who is not less than 18 years of age. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 289.027, service of a subpoena must be made by delivering a copy thereof to the person named.

2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 174.315, a subpoena to attend a misdemeanor trial may be served by mailing the subpoena to the person to be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested from that person, in a sealed postpaid envelope, addressed to the person's last known address, not less than 10 days before the trial which the subpoena commands the person to attend.

3. If a subpoena is served by mail, a certificate of the mailing must be filed with the court within 2 days after the subpoena is mailed.

NRS 174.365 provides that a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the State of Nevada.

NRS 174.375 provides:

1. An order to take a deposition authorizes the issuance by the clerk of the court for the county in which the deposition is to be taken of subpoenas for the persons named or described therein.

2. A resident of this state may be required to attend an examination only in the county wherein the resident resides or is employed or transacts business in person. A nonresident of this state may be required to attend only in the county where the nonresident is served with a subpoena or within 40 miles from the place of service or at such other place as is fixed by the court.

NRS 174.385 provides:

Failure by any person without an adequate excuse to obey a subpoena of a court, a prosecuting attorney or an attorney for a defendant served upon the person or, in the case of a subpoena issued by a prosecuting attorney or an attorney for a defendant, delivered to the person and accepted, shall be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued or, in the case of a subpoena issued by a prosecuting attorney or an attorney for a defendant, of the court in which a preliminary hearing is to be held, an investigation is pending or an indictment, information or complaint is to be tried.

Issuance of a subpoena in a civil case is governed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 45:

NRCP Rule 45.

(a) Form; Issuance.

(1) Every subpoena shall

(A) state the name of the court from which it is issued; and

(B) state the title of the action, the name of the court in which it is pending, and its civil case number; and

(C) command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things in the possession, custody or control of that person, or to permit inspection of premises, at a time and place therein specified; and

(D) set forth the text of subdivisions (c) and (d) of this rule.

A command to produce evidence or permit inspection may be joined with a command to appear at trial or hearing or at deposition, or may be issued separately.

(2) A subpoena commanding attendance at a trial or hearing shall issue from the court for the district in which the hearing or trial is to be held. A subpoena for attendance at a deposition shall issue from the court for the district in which the action is pending. If separate from a subpoena commanding the attendance of a person, a subpoena for production or inspection shall issue from the court for the district in which the action is pending. If the action is pending out of the state, a subpoena may be issued by the clerk of any district court, and the court in the district in which the deposition is being taken or in which the production or inspection is to take place shall, for the purposes of these rules, be considered the court in which the action is pending.

(3) The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall complete it before service. An attorney as officer of the court may also issue and sign a subpoena on behalf of the court if the attorney is authorized to practice therein.

(b) Service.

(1) A subpoena may be served by any person who is not a party and is not less than 18 years of age. Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to such person and, if the person's attendance is commanded, by tendering to that person the fees for one day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. When the subpoena is issued on behalf of the State or an officer or agency thereof, fees and mileage need not be tendered. Prior notice, not less than 15 days, of any commanded production of documents and things or inspection of premises before trial shall be served on each party in the manner prescribed by Rule 5(b).

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of subparagraph (c)(3)(A) of this rule, a subpoena may be served at any place within the state.

(3) Proof of service when necessary shall be made by filing with the clerk of the court by which the subpoena is issued a statement of the date and manner of service and of the names of the persons served, certified by the person who made the service.

(c) Protection of Persons Subject to Subpoena.

(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee.

(2)(A) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded.

(3)(A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it

(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance;

(ii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or

(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party,

the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

There appear to be no special rules concerning service of subpoenas to members of the news media.

Compare

2. Deposit of security

NRS 50.225 provides:

1. For attending the courts of this State in any criminal case, or civil suit or proceeding before a court of record, master, commissioner, justice of the peace, or before the grand jury, in obedience to a subpoena, each witness is entitled:

(a) To be paid a fee of $25 for each day's attendance, including Sundays and holidays.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, to be paid for attending a court of the county in which the witness resides at the standard mileage reimbursement rate for which a deduction is allowed for the purposes of federal income tax for each mile necessarily and actually traveled from and returning to the place of residence by the shortest and most practical route. A board of county commissioners may provide that, for each mile so traveled to attend a court of the county in which the witness resides, each witness is entitled to be paid an amount equal to the allowance for travel by private conveyance established by the State Board of Examiners for state officers and employees generally. If the board of county commissioners so provides, each witness at any other hearing or proceeding held in that county who is entitled to receive the payment for mileage specified in this paragraph must be paid mileage in an amount equal to the allowance for travel by private conveyance established by the State Board of Examiners for state officers and employees generally.

2. In addition to the fee and payment for mileage specified in subsection 1, a board of county commissioners may provide that, for each day of attendance in a court of the county in which the witness resides, each witness is entitled to be paid the per diem allowance provided for state officers and employees generally. If the board of county commissioners so provides, each witness at any other hearing or proceeding held in that county who is a resident of that county and who is entitled to receive the fee specified in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 must be paid, in addition to that fee, the per diem allowance provided for state officers and employees generally.

3. If a witness is from without the county or, being a resident of another state, voluntarily appears as a witness at the request of the Attorney General or the district attorney and the board of county commissioners of the county in which the court is held, the witness is entitled to reimbursement for the actual and necessary expenses for going to and returning from the place where the court is held. The witness is also entitled to receive the same per diem allowance provided for state officers and employees generally.

4. Any person in attendance at a trial who is sworn as a witness is entitled to the fees, the per diem allowance, if any, travel expenses and any other reimbursement set forth in this section, irrespective of the service of a subpoena.

5. Witness fees, per diem allowances, travel expenses and other reimbursement in civil cases must be taxed as disbursement costs against the defeated party upon proof by affidavit that they have been actually incurred. Costs must not be allowed for more than two witnesses to the same fact or series of facts, and a party plaintiff or defendant must not be allowed any fees, per diem allowance, travel expenses or other reimbursement for attendance as a witness in his or her own behalf.

6. A person is not obligated to appear in a civil action or proceeding unless the person has been paid an amount equal to 1 day's fees, the per diem allowance provided by the board of county commissioners pursuant to subsection 2, if any, and the travel expenses reimbursable pursuant to this section.

Compare

3. Filing of affidavit

A party issuing a subpoena for a reporter’s testimony or materials is not required to make a sworn statement. A party may submit an affidavit or other evidence in support of a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena.

Compare

4. Judicial approval

There is no requirement that a judge or magistrate approve a subpoena before a party may serve it.

Compare

5. Service of police or other administrative subpoenas

Certain administrative proceedings may require application to a hearing officer or other appropriate authority to obtain permission to issue a subpoena. Once approved, there are no special rules regarding the use of other administrative subpoenas, police subpoenas or fire subpoenas.

Compare

B. How to Quash

1. Contact other party first

Most objections to subpoenas to the media can be resolved by a simple telephone call.  Some attorneys in Nevada may be unfamiliar with the news shield law.  Reference should be made to NRS 49.275; Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875 (2013) and Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000).  If the attorney agrees to withdraw the subpoena, a letter confirming this fact should be sent.  Most local court rules require that the parties attempt to resolve discovery matters by contacting the other party either in person or by telephone prior to filing a motion to quash or a motion to compel.

Compare

2. Filing an objection or a notice of intent

In criminal cases a motion to quash should be filed. In civil cases, service of a timely objection is generally sufficient in response to a subpoena to produce and inspect documents, although it is not uncommon for a motion to quash or motion for protective order to be filed.

Compare

3. File a motion to quash

a. Which court?

A motion to quash should be filed in the district court in criminal cases, with the discovery commissioner in civil cases pending in state court, and with the district court for civil cases that may be assigned to business court. Objections to the discovery commissioner's report and recommendation should be filed in the district court. For cases pending in federal district court that may implicate Nevada’s news shield law, a motion to quash should be directed to the assigned magistrate judge and objections to any resulting order should be directed to the federal district court judge.

Compare

b. Motion to compel

A reporter should not wait for a motion to compel before filing a motion to quash in a criminal case. In civil cases, it is generally acceptable to wait for a motion to compel, although this is a matter of preference and it is acceptable to file a motion to quash or motion for protective order prior to the filing of a motion to compel.

Compare

c. Timing

Generally, the motion should be filed prior to the date and time listed on the subpoena and an order should be sought on shortened time or an emergency basis prior to the compliance deadline. If the subpoena is for trial testimony, the motion to quash should be filed as soon as possible.  In either event, a reporter may petition the Nevada Supreme Court for extraordinary relief in the event a motion to quash is denied.  Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 93, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000).

Compare

d. Language

Reference should be made to the news shield statute and the First Amendment. NRS 49.275; Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 878 (2013); Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 94, 99, 993 P.2d 50, 54, 57 (2000).

Compare

e. Additional material

In seeking protection, a motion to quash a subpoena should demonstrate that the information sought by the subpoena is facially protect by the news shield statute. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879 (2013).  A reporter is not required to submit an affidavit establishing protection under NRS 49.275 so long as the party’s attorney establishes facial protection. Id.

Compare

4. In camera review

a. Necessity

The law does not direct a court to conduct an in camera review of materials or interview the reporter prior to deciding a motion to quash.

Compare

There is no automatic stay pending appeal in the event of an adverse ruling in cases where a reporter or publisher consents to an in camera review.

Compare

c. Consequences of refusing

There are no published decisions concerning the consequences to a reporter or publisher who refuses to consent to an in camera review.

Compare

5. Briefing schedule

The briefing schedule varies by local rule, but in state district court, a response is generally due 10 judicial days, plus three days for service, after the filing of a motion; and 14 days in federal district court.  Motions may be heard on shortened time or on an emergency basis if requested and ordered by the applicable commissioner, magistrate judge or district court judge.

Compare

6. Amicus briefs

Nevada courts routinely accept amicus briefs in the district courts and Nevada Supreme Court. Barry Smith, Director of the Nevada Press Association can be contacted at 702-885-0866. The Nevada Press Association is located at 102 N. Curry St., Carson City, Nevada 89703; fax number: 775-885-0866. The Reporters Committee can be contacted at 800.336.4243 or hotline -at- rcfp.org.

Compare

VI. Substantive law on contesting subpoenas

A. Burden, standard of proof

NRS 49.275 provides for an absolute privilege, for both published and unpublished information. The news shield statute is not limited to confidential sources but includes any source. The statute protects both the information obtained and the source of the information. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It has not issued any opinions concerning a conflict between a criminal defendant's constitutional rights and the rights of the media under NRS 49.275. It is therefore unclear as to who would bear the burden and what the standard of proof would be in such a case.

Compare

B. Elements

A request for protection under the news shield statute may be raised by a reporter’s attorney in a motion to quash a subpoena, without the need to file a supporting affidavit, as long as the motion demonstrates that the information sought by the subpoena is facially protected by the news shield statute. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879 (2013), overruling Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 104 Nev. 508, 761 P.2d 849 (1988).  A mere recitation of the statute alone remains insufficient to claim the privilege.  Las Vegas Sun v. Schwartz, 104 Nev. 508, 514, 761 P.2d 849, 854 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000). Any objection to a subpoena, motion to quash or other motion should be accompanied by information sufficient to establish the information sought by the subpoena is facially protected.  Aspen Fin. Services, Inc., 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d at 879.

Compare

1. Relevance of material to case at bar

In most cases, the relevance of the material or testimony that has been subpoenaed should be irrelevant. The privilege is absolute and does not rest on materiality. As noted above, however, the Nevada Supreme Court has noted in dicta that there may be situations in which the privilege may be defeated, such as in a case where a criminal defendant's constitutional rights would be violated if the privilege were recognized. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). In such a case, it is likely that the materiality of the testimony would be considered.

Compare

2. Material unavailable from other sources

In most cases, the unavailability of the material from other sources should be irrelevant. The privilege is absolute and does not rest on unavailability from other sources. As noted above, however, the Nevada Supreme Court has noted in dicta that there may be situations in which the privilege is defeated, such as in a case where a criminal defendant's constitutional rights would be violated if the privilege were recognized. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). In such a case, it is likely that the unavailability of the of the testimony from other sources could be considered. It should also be noted that in Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000), a concurring opinion gave extensive analysis of the fact that the information sought was available from other sources. Although it appears that such discussion was not necessary for resolution of that matter, it may be indicative of the Court's interest in related factual issues and its potential evaluation when faced with a “defendant’s countervailing constitutional rights.”  Id. at 101, 993 P.2d at 59.

Compare

a. How exhaustive must search be?

In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not discussed any standards for exhaustion.

Compare

b. What proof of search does a subpoenaing party need to make?

In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not discussed any standards for exhaustion.

Compare

c. Source is an eyewitness to a crime

There is no statutory exception to the privilege for a source that was a witness to a crime. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It may be the case that if a source witnessed a crime or was a participant in a crime, and a criminal defendant required information about the source in order to defend himself against criminal charges, Nevada courts could find an exception to the news shield law in NRS 49.275. Such an argument should not prevail in cases where the prosecution seeks disclosure as the State has no constitutional rights that would prevail over the statutory privilege. There are no cases directly addressing this issue.

Compare

3. Balancing of interests

The terms of the statute do not provide for any judicial balancing of interests in determining whether to quash the subpoena. The Nevada Supreme Court has stated, in dicta, that "although the news shield statute provides an absolute privilege to reporters engaged in the newsgathering process, there may be certain situations, e.g., when a defendant's countervailing constitutional rights are at issue, in which the news shield statute might have to yield so that justice may be served." Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 879-80 (2013), citing Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). Thus, it has left open the possibility for a judicial balancing of interests in those circumstances.

Compare

4. Subpoena not overbroad or unduly burdensome

The discovery commissioner and district court judges are generally entitled to make a determination as to whether a subpoena is overly broad or unduly burdensome, and a reporter’s attorney should also raise any such issue in connection with a motion to quash or for protective order.

Compare

5. Threat to human life

In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not addressed whether a judge is required to weigh whether the matter subpoenaed involves a threat to human life.

Compare

6. Material is not cumulative

In light of the absolute nature of the privilege, Nevada cases have not discussed considerations of whether the material would be cumulative.

Compare

7. Civil/criminal rules of procedure

The rules of procedure provide that a motion to quash may be filed to contest frivolous or unduly burdensome subpoenas. A timely objection to a subpoena may be made to the issuing party in civil cases that command production or permit inspection of documents and designated materials.  NRCP 45(c)(2)(B).  Sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys’ fees may also be sought, although they are granted far more often in civil cases than in criminal cases. NRCP 45(c)(1).

Compare

8. Other elements

There are no other elements that must be met before the privilege can be overcome.

Compare

C. Waiver or limits to testimony

The privilege is not waived by publication of the information but will be deemed waived if the journalist relies on confidential information in defending against a libel action. The statute must be invoked in its entirety and the journalist will generally not be permitted to claim that he relied upon confidential sources. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000).

Compare

1. Is the privilege waivable?

In Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50 (2000), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized that the privilege belongs to the reporter. The privilege covers both published and unpublished information, so it will not be waived based upon publication of otherwise confidential information.

Compare

2. Elements of waiver

a. Disclosure of confidential source's name

Disclosure of a confidential source's name within the context of a published article will not be sufficient to waive the privilege. Disclosure of a confidential source's name to an editor or lawyer will not be sufficient to waive the privilege.

Compare

b. Disclosure of non-confidential source's name

Disclosure of a non-confidential source's name will not be sufficient for waiver of the privilege.

Compare

c. Partial disclosure of information

If the reporter discloses some information from the source, the privilege will not be deemed waived. A reporter would likely not be permitted to provide partial information in defending a defamation or libel action and then claim the privilege for other information about the source. The statute must be invoked in its entirety.

Compare

d. Other elements

Waiver may be found if the reporter attempts to defend a defamation or libel action by revealing partial information about a source. The statute must be invoked in its entirety.

Compare

3. Agreement to partially testify act as waiver?

There are no published Nevada cases addressing whether a waiver of the privilege will be found if a reporter agrees to partially testify, such as to confirm that the story is accurate and true as published.

Compare

VII. What constitutes compliance?

In a civil case, a party issuing a subpoena for the production of documents and things must provide parties to the action with notice of not less than 15 days.  NRCP 45(b)(1).  Non-parties who are subpoenaed to produce documents or other materials are not required to be provided specific time to comply, but the rule does require an issuing party to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense.  NRCP 45(c)(1).  Additionally, a subpoena issued to a non-party for the production of documents or for inspection does not require personal attendance. NRCP 45(c)(2)(A).

Compare

A. Newspaper articles

There appear to be no Nevada cases addressing whether newspaper articles are self-authenticating or who can authenticate the material. NRS 52.145 provides that "printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals are presumed to be authentic."

Compare

B. Broadcast materials

There appear to be no Nevada cases specifically addressing whether tapes of broadcast materials are self-authenticating or what steps must be taken to authenticate a broadcast tape. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated that “the requirement of authentication . . . is satisfied by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Archanian v. State, 122 Nev. 1019, 1030, 145 P.3d 1008, 1016–17 (2006) (citing NRS 52.015(1)) (finding videotape downloaded from surveillance system authenticated by police detective testimony).

Compare

C. Testimony vs. affidavits

A declaration or affidavit from a reporter may be sufficient in some circumstances where a record was made in the course of regularly conducted activity.  NRS 52.260; NRS 53.045 (permitting unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in lieu of affidavit).  Further, declarations and affidavits are generally admissible in support of most motions, including dispositive motions, in Nevada courts.  NRS 52.260.

Compare

D. Non-compliance remedies

Although there is no case law directly addressing the issue of non-compliance remedies, it appears that a reporter who refuses to comply with a court order to testify or produce documents could be held in civil contempt or criminal contempt. If a reporter is a party to a civil action, the court may also impose discovery sanctions.

Compare

1. Civil contempt

a. Fines

NRS 50.195 provides, in part:

  1. Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness may be punished as a contempt by the court. In a civil action, if the person so refusing is a party, the court may strike any pleading on the person’s behalf, and may enter judgment against that person.
  2. A witness disobeying a subpoena in a civil action shall also forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of $100 and all damages which the party may sustain by the failure of the witness to attend, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.
Compare

b. Jail

NRS 22.100 provides:

1. Upon the answer and evidence taken, the court or judge or jury, as the case may be, shall determine whether the person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged.

2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 22.110, if a person is found guilty of contempt, a fine may be imposed on the person not exceeding $500 or the person may be imprisoned not exceeding 25 days, or both.

3. In addition to the penalties provided in subsection 2, if a person is found guilty of contempt pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 22.010, the court may require the person to pay to the party seeking to enforce the writ, order, rule or process the reasonable expenses, including, without limitation, attorney's fees, incurred by the party as a result of the contempt.

NRS 22.110 provides:

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, when the contempt consists in the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, the person may be imprisoned until the person performs it. The required act must be specified in the warrant of commitment.

2. A person so imprisoned as a result of his or her failure or refusal to testify before a grand jury may be imprisoned in the county jail for a period not to exceed 6 months or until that grand jury is discharged, whichever is less.

There appear to be no limits for jail sentences in cases of civil contempt. It does not appear that there are any recent cases of reporters who went to jail rather than disclose the names of confidential sources or information. Likewise, it does not appear that there are any recent cases in which reporters have been threatened with jail sentences.

Compare

2. Criminal contempt

NRS 50.195 provides, in part:

3. A witness disobeying a subpoena issued on the part of a defendant in a criminal action shall also forfeit to the defendant the sum of $100, which may be recovered in a civil action, unless good cause can be shown for the witness’s nonattendance.

NRS 50.205 provides:

In case of failure of a witness to attend, the court or officer issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the county to arrest the witness and bring the witness before the court or officer where the attendance of the witness was required.

There appears to be no recent cases in Nevada involving criminal contempt of a reporter.

Compare

3. Other remedies

The Nevada Supreme Court, however, has held that "once a media litigant has invoked the protection of the news shield statute to resist discovery, the defendant may not later rely on the privileged information as a defense." Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 59 (2000). It has also held that "to the extent that a plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove that a media litigant either knew that the published information was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth, an assertion of the shield statute may result in discovery sanctions." Id. at n.6.

Compare

VIII. Appealing

A. Timing

1. Interlocutory appeals

A petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus in connection with a discovery order is an appropriate remedy to prevent pretrial discovery of privileged material. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. In & For Cty. of Clark, 113 Nev. 521, 526, 936 P.2d 844, 847 (1997). An emergency petition seeking relief in less than 14 days may be filed in accordance with Rule 21 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Compare

2. Expedited appeals

A petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus in connection with a discovery order is an appropriate remedy to prevent pretrial discovery of privileged material. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. In & For Cty. of Clark, 113 Nev. 521, 526, 936 P.2d 844, 847 (1997). An emergency petition that seeks relief from an interlocutory order in less than 14 days may be filed in accordance with Rule 21 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In the event the subject order is a final order or has otherwise been certified as final pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of notice of entry of judgment in a civil case and within 30 days of a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.  A party may file a motion to expedite an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court. There is no specific statute or rule which provides for an expedited appeal in cases involving news media subpoenas. A motion to stay a district court order must be made in the district court prior to the filing of a motion to stay a district court order that is filed in the Nevada Supreme Court.

Compare

B. Procedure

1. To whom is the appeal made?

Appeals from municipal court or justice court are made to district court. Objections to an order from the discovery commissioner may be made to the district court. Appeals from district court are made to the Nevada Supreme Court.  Nevada has an intermediate appellate court.  The Nevada Supreme Court determines whether it will retain matters or whether it will assign review to the Nevada Court of Appeals.

Compare

2. Stays pending appeal

A motion for stay pending appeal, or stay pending petition for extraordinary relief, will not be entertained by the Nevada Supreme Court unless a motion for stay is first made in the district court. The motion in the district court may be made orally or in writing. The motion for stay pending appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court must be made in writing. A motion for stay pending appeal should be premised upon violation of the news shield law codified in NRS 49.275, constitutional right, and a claim of irreparable harm in the event of forced disclosure prior to appellate review.

Compare

3. Nature of appeal

An appeal may be taken only if the person appealing the order is a party to the action and the order is either final or has been certified as final pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). A reporter who is not a party to an action may challenge an order compelling compliance with a subpoena through a petition for a writ of prohibition or a petition for a writ of mandamus.  A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of notice of entry of judgment in a civil case and within 30 days of a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. In Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000), the court entertained a petition for a writ of mandamus from a party to the action who challenged a district court's order quashing a subpoena to a reporter, despite the availability of an appeal, because there was "an important issue of law [which] needs clarification and public policy is served by this court's invocation of its original jurisdiction[.]" Nevada courts have also confirmed that a petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus in connection with a discovery order is an appropriate remedy to prevent pretrial discovery of privileged material. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. In & For Cty. of Clark, 113 Nev. 521, 526, 936 P.2d 844, 847 (1997).

Compare

4. Standard of review

Questions of statutory interpretation are subject to the Nevada Supreme Court's independent review. Aspen Fin. Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, 129 Nev. 878, 313 P.3d 875, 878 (2013); Diaz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 88, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000).

Compare

5. Addressing mootness questions

It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed any mootness issues within the context of appeals or writ proceedings concerning the news shield law (NRS 49.275).

Compare

6. Relief

A reporter's attorney should file a petition for a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative, a writ of prohibition in cases where the reporter is not a party to the action, or in cases where confidential information will be disclosed in compliance with a district court order compelling production or testimony. A motion for stay pending appeal, or stay pending petition for extraordinary relief, should be made in the district court, and if denied, should be made in the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court may dissolve a contempt citation, order the issuance of a writ, or provide any other relief which it deems appropriate under the circumstances.

Compare

IX. Other issues

A. Newsroom searches

It appears that there are no published court decisions or statutes addressing newsroom searches.

Compare

B. Separation orders

It appears that there are no published court decisions or statutes limiting the scope of separation orders issued against reporters who are both trying to cover the trial and are on a witness list. In practice before the trial courts, a few attorneys have listed reporters on witness lists and have attempted to have the reporter excluded from the courtroom. There appear to be no known cases where a motion to quash a subpoena has not been successful; thus, a reporter has not been called to testify.

Compare

C. Third-party subpoenas

It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether subpoenas can be issued to third parties in an attempt to discover a reporter's source.

Compare

D. The source's rights and interests

It does not appear that the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether sources may intervene anonymously to halt disclosure of their identities. There do not appear to be any Nevada cases addressing suits by sources concerning disclosure of their identities.

Compare