Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep'T Vs. Las Vegas Review Journal

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 13, 2020
• Docket: 75518
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE No. 75518 DEPARTMENT, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.; THE ASSOCIATED FEB 1 3 2020 PRESS; CABLE NEWS NETWORK, EL$27:,,T3F.:17-3 P-ReArN INC.; CHESAPEAKE MEDIA I, LLC, CLEM? 8U:=RE:viE CC:1.MT D/B/A KSNV-TV; LOS ANGELES BY DE.FilriCLf.Err TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY; SCRIPPS BROADCASTING HOLDINGS LLC, D/B/A KTNV-TV; AND WP COMPANY LLC D/B/A THE WASHINGTON POST, Res iondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from district court orders directing appellant to disclose records and awarding costs in a public records matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Richard Scotti, Judge. This court previously ordered appellant and cross-appellant to show cause why this appeal and cross-appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It appeared that the district court had not yet entered a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1), see Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment); Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (explaining that "a final, appealable judgment is one that disposes of the

-Oloo /7 issues presented in the case . . . and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court" (internal quotation marks omitted)). In response, appellant contends that the district court's March 2, 2018, order granting the public records application was a final order because the district court granted respondents petition for a writ of mandamus. As such, appellant argues the district court's March 9, 2018, order awarding costs was a special order after final judgment. In the alternative, appellant asserts the March 9 order was the final judgment. Specifically, appellant and cross-appellant assert that any issues considered and/or resolved by the district court after the March 9 order were collateral issues to the underlying appeal and cross-appeal. The March 2 order directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing and the March 9 order set a status check hearing for "lingering issues." Because both orders anticipated future consideration of the underlying issues by the district court, neither order appears to be fmal. Additionally, just because the March 2 order granted respondents' petition for a writ of mandamus, and such a grant would appear to be a final judgment, this court has to look past the title of the order and determine whether the action was resolved with finality. See Valley Bank, 110 Nev. at 444, 874 P.2d at 733 ("This court has consistently looked past labels in interpreting NRAP 3A(b)(1), and has instead taken a functional view of finality, which seeks to further the rule's main objective: promoting judicial economy by avoiding the specter of piecemeal appellate review."). Appellant acknowledges the district court held numerous status checks thereafter, and even addressed what documents needed to be disclosed and when. Further, the district court considered whether appellant needed to disclose evidence logs and provide a certification when it had no responsive

2 documents. Additionally, it appears from this court's review of the district court docket entries that status checks have been ongoing and no action has been taken to obtain certification of the orders appealed from as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b). As it does not appear that the district court has entered a final judgment or properly certified any order as final under NRCP 54(b), the challenged orders are not appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1). And it does not appear that any other statute or court rule authorizes this appeal and cross- appeal. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and we ORDER this appeal and cross-appeal DISMISSED.'

Gibbons Hardesty

, J. --Cle‘a6126 Parraguirre . Stiglich

J. L14.4aA) , J. Silver

'In light of this order, we deny the December 20, 2018, motion as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ,111,1eFr, cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge Marquis Aurbach Coffing Ballard Spahr LLP/Las Vegas McLetchie Law Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) I947A 4V5c,