Washoe County District Court Judge Kathleen Drakulich this week awarded costs and attorney fees to This Is Reno in its public records lawsuit against the Reno Police Department. Last year, This Is Reno sued RPD for failing to follow Nevada public records laws. Drakulich partially agreed. She said RPD failed to respond to a number of This Is Reno’s public records orders within the time frame required by law – up to seven months in one case. Drakulich, however, said RPD properly denied the release of documents relevant to open investigations. She also said RPD can continue to redact officer faces from body worn cameras, a practice This Is Reno attempted to challenge. Body cam redaction policies are inconsistently applied in Nevada. Most other states in the country do not redact officer faces, a point the Reno city attorney said was irrelevant. In Nevada, some law enforcement entities are redacting officer faces from videos. That includes the back of officer heads, in RPD’s case. The reason for the redactions, according to the Reno city attorney: The law prohibits the release of an officer’s photograph to the public unless the officer gives permission for the release.

1. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3025
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITION
Currently before the Court is Petitioner Robert A. Conrad’s (“Petitioner”) Public Records Act
Application Pursuant to NRS § 239.011/Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Petition”) filed May 11, 2021.
On July 23, 2021, this Court filed an Order to File which found good cause for Reno Police Department
(“Respondent” or “the City”) to file a response. On August 20, 2021, Respondent filed City of Reno’s
Response (“Response”). On October 20, 2021, this Court issued an Order to Set and a hearing took place
on December 1, 2021.
I. Background
Petitioner alleges he has filed approximately a dozen public records requests (“Requests”) with
Reno Police Department (“RPD”) and in many instances RPD failed to properly comply within the
statutory required timeframes established by the Nevada Public Records Act (“NPRA”) and improperly
redacted information. Pet. at 3:20-26. Moreover, Petitioner alleges RPD did not start complying with
ROBERT A. CONRAD, an individual doing
business as, THISISRENO.COM
Petitioner,
vs.
RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
governmental subdivision of the CITY OF
RENO, and JOHN DOES I through X,
inclusive,
Respondents.
_______________________________________/
Case No.: CV21-00875
Dept. No: 1
F I L E D
Electronically
CV21-00875
2022-02-10 02:29:36 PM
Alicia L. Lerud
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 8891743

2. 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NPRA until Petitioner sought legal assistance.1
Id. at 2:27-3:2. In the Petition, Petitioner seeks the
following relief:
1) A declaratory judgment that Petitioner is entitled to damages and that Respondent has
repeatedly violated NRS Chapter 239 by failing to meet statutorily mandated timelines;
2) Determine whether the redactions made by RPD and the withholding of public records
are legally appropriate and meet the legal burden to withhold such otherwise public
records, from the public (the continued withholding of the Carry records that are available
from Reno Justice Court) and (the video redactions of officer faces from the homeless
sweep video that was conducted in public, while leaving in officer names visible on their
uniforms); 3) an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and all other expenses incurred
herein to Petitioner pursuant to NRS 239.011(2); 4) Retain jurisdiction over Respondent
until such time as the Court is satisfied that Respondent’s unlawful customs, policies,
practices, rules, regulations, acts, and omissions complained of herein no longer exists and
will not recur; and 5) enact civil penalties against Petitioner pursuant to NRS 239.340 for
failure to comply with the NPRA.
Id. at 20:16-21:6.
II. Legal Authority
a. Writ of Mandamus
The Nevada Constitution grants district courts with jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Nev.
Const., art. 6, § 6. The district court may issue a writ of mandamus “to compel the performance of an act
which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.” NRS 34.160. The
Nevada Supreme Court has further recognized that while the writ of mandamus may not generally be
used to control a discretionary action, the writ of mandamus may be used to control an arbitrary or
capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d
534, 536 (1981). The district court shall not issue a writ of mandamus when there is a “plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170. Further, A petitioner has the burden of
demonstrating that the issuance of a writ of mandate is warranted. Burgess v. NDOC Grievances
Coordinator, 127 Nev. 1122, 373 P.3d 899 (2011). “[A] writ of mandamus is generally the appropriate
means for pursuing the disclosure of public records pursuant to NRS 239.011.” City of Sparks v. Reno
1
“Under the catalyst theory, attorney fees may be awarded even when litigation does not result in a judicial resolution if the
defendant changes its behavior substantially because of, and in the manner sought by, the litigation.” Las Vegas Metro Police
Dep’t v. Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc., 136 Nev. 122, 123, 460 P.3d 952, 954 (2020) (quoting Graham v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553, 101 P.3d 140, 144 (2004)). As this Court has found attorney’s fees were proper
pursuant to statute, this Court shall not divulge into an analysis regarding the catalyst theory.

3. 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. 398, 399-400, 399 P.3d 352, 355 (2017). A district court’s order denying a
petition for a writ of mandamus is reviewed for abuse of discretion. City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal,
119 Nev. 55, 58, 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003).
b. Requests for Public Records
If an individual requests to inspect or receive a copy of a public book/record, the government
entity shall respond to the request by the end of the fifth business day. See NRS 239.0107(1). If a request
of a public record has been denied or unreasonably delayed, a person may apply for a court order pursuant
to NRS 239.011.2
The Nevada Public Records Act (“NPRA”) presumes that all government-generated records are
open to disclosure. Reno Newspapers v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 880, 266 P.3d 623, 628 (2011). However,
when a governmental entity withholds or redacts a requested record because it is confidential, the
governmental entity “bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the records
are confidential.” Id. at 878, 266 P.3d at 626. To overcome its burden, “[t]he state entity may either show
that a statutory provision declares the record confidential, or, in the absence of such a provision, ‘that its
interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public’s interest in access.’” Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of Nev.
v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 129 Nev. 833, 837, 313 P.3d 221, 224 (2013).
In Clark Cty. School Distr. v. Las Vegas Review-Journal (CCSD), the Nevada Supreme Court
refined the test employed by Reno Newspapers and adopted a burden-shifting test to determine whether
a sensitive investigative report that implicated individual privacy interests was subject to disclosure as a
public record. 134 Nev. 700, 708, 429 P.3d 313, 320 (2018). Under the CCSD test, the government must
establish that disclosure would intrude on a personal privacy interest that is nontrivial or that rises above
2
NRS 239.011(1) provides:
1. If a request for inspection, copying or copies of a public book or record open to inspection and copying
is denied or unreasonably delayed or if a person who requests a copy of a public book or record believes
that the fee charged by the governmental entity for providing the copy of the public book or record is
excessive or improper, the requester may apply to the district court in the county in which the book or record
is located for an order:
(a) Permitting the requester to inspect or copy the book or record;
(b) Requiring the person who has legal custody or control of the public book or record to provide a copy to
the requester; or
(c) Providing relief relating to the amount of the fee,
as applicable.

4. 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the de minimis level. Id. at 707, 429 P.3d at 320. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the requesting
party to show that disclosure is likely to advance a significant public interest. Id. at 707- 08, 429 P.3d at
320. Notably, in Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVMPD), the Court
extended the CCSD test to all public record requests where the government asserts a nontrivial privacy
interest. 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 86, 478 P.3d 383 (2020).
III. Analysis
a. RPD’s Withholding/Redaction of Records
While the Petition details four separate requests for production, the Petition only seeks to
determine if the withholding/redactions made by the RPD were proper for Request No. 1 (Carry
Investigative Report) and Request No. 2 (Redactions of Officers Faces). See generally Pet. Therefore,
this Court shall only consider Request No. 1 and Request No. 2 when determining if RPD properly
withheld/redacted the records.
i. Request for Production No. 1 (Carry Investigative Report)
On February 28, 2020, Petitioner requested information regarding Washoe County Sheriff’s
Sergeant Dennis Carry (“Mr. Carry”), who was allegedly under investigation for a number of felony
charges. Pet. 4:7-12. On February 28, 2020, Petitioner received a response that he would be notified
within five days that the records would be available unless they contained confidential information. Id.
at 4:7-12. On March 9, 2020, Petitioner followed up with RPD informing them pursuant to NRS
239.0107(1) that the documents should have been produced within five business days or the government
entity must have provided a citation to a specific statute or other legal authority which makes the public
record confidential. See NRS 239.0107(1). On the following day, March 10, 2020, Petitioner received a
response that such information could not be provided under Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev.
630, 798 P.2d 144 (1990). Pet. at 4:18-20. Petitioner then confirmed that the Request was denied due to
an active investigation which RPD confirmed. Id. at 4:21-23. Petitioner then details the numerous
requests they made for this information; however, each follow-up was denied as the investigation was
still under way. Id. at 5:8-23.
Next, Petitioner informs the Court a Criminal Complaint was filed in Reno Justice Court against
Mr. Carry. Id. at 5:24-25. Petitioner alleges he was able to receive a Declaration in Support of Arrest

5. 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Warrant which totaled 187 pages and detailed virtually every step of the investigation of Mr. Carry;
however, RDP still refused to release the investigative report. Id. at 5:26-6:6. On February 11, 2021,
Assistant City Attorney Robert Bony (“Mr. Bony”) again denied the request for the information stating
Mr. Carry’s right of receiving a fair trial coupled with RPD’s interest in protecting confidential techniques
and the identity of reporting parties in this matter outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure of the
investigative report. Id. at 6:7-15. Petitioner asserts he informed Mr. Bony of the 187-page Declaration
in support of Arrest Warrant and claimed that the investigative report cannot be confidential in light of
this information, however Mr. Bony again denied this request on March 5, 2021. Id. at 6:16-7:2.
Petitioner asserts NRS 179A.100(4)(l)3
supports their ability to receive an investigative report.
Pet. at 15:22-16:3. Petitioner contends an arrest report is a “record of criminal history” and provisions of
NRS 179A.100 govern the dissemination of arrest reports. See NRS 179A.070(1); see also NRS
179A.100.4
Petitioner alleges RPD’s interest in protecting confidential techniques and the identity of
reporting parties is clearly outweighed by the public’s interest in disclosure. Pet. at 17:14-16. Further,
Petitioner contends RPD failed to state how Mr. Carry’s right to a fair trial would be implicated by
disclosure of the investigative report. Id. at 17:16-18.
The City claims because Mr. Carry is currently under criminal investigation with criminal
proceedings pending, the City cited applicable legal authority and denied Petitioner’s request—most
recently on March 5, 2021. Response at 7:23-25. The City rebuts Petitioner’s argument that the
Declaration of Sergeant Johnson essentially made public the Investigative Report as the City claims the
Investigative Report contains detailed facts and information such as witness statements, interviews of
witnesses and other involved parties, relevant emails, reports and other items that are not in the Carry
3
NRS 179A.100(4)(l) provides:
Records of criminal history must be disseminated by an agency of criminal justice, upon request, to the
following persons or governmental entities: Any reporter or editorial employee who is employed or
affiliated with a newspaper, press association or commercially operated, federally licensed radio or
television station who requests a record of a named person or aggregate information for statistical purposes,
excluding any personal identifying information, in a professional capacity for communication to the public.
See NRS 179A.100(4)(l).
4
As NRS 179A.070(2) explicitly states “investigative or intelligence information, reports of crime or other information
concerning specific persons collected in the course of the enforcement of criminal laws is not a record of criminal history” the
Court shall not further consider this argument.

6. 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration and have not been released to the public. Id. at 8:1-8. Moreover, the City directs the Court to
Affidavit of Detective Sergeant Trenton Johnson which states that the investigative file contains
information that, if released to the public, could: 1) hamper the ongoing investigations ability to obtain
uncorrupted evidence; 2) increase the likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury or jury panel; 3) taint
the original testimony of witnesses called to testify in court; and 4) affect the ability of the defense to
successfully suppress any part of the investigative file through court proceedings if applicable. Id. at
8:13-17; see also Response at Exhibit 1. The City contends there is a legitimate public policy interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of criminal investigation records and crime reports. Response at 6:6-7.
The City states public policy favors “the protection of the elements of an investigation of a crime from
premature disclosures, the avoidance of prejudice to the later trial of the defendant from harmful pretrial
publicity, the protection of the privacy of persons who are not arrested from the stigma of being singled
out as a criminal suspect, and the protection of the identity of informants.” Response at 6:7-10.
The Court finds good cause to deny the Petition as to these records. Specifically, this Court is
bound to follow the precedent established in Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw, which requires this Court
to perform a balancing test considering the relevant interests involved. 106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144
(1990).5
Specifically, when performing this balancing test, the Court must consider the defendant’s right
to a fair trial and the possibility of disclosure of confidential sources/investigative techniques against the
public’s interest in obtaining this information. Id. at 636, 798 P.2d at 148. This balancing test clearly
demonstrates that the Investigative Report should not be disclosed for a myriad of reasons. Currently,
there is a criminal proceeding commenced against Mr. Carry which would disfavor disclosure as this
could hamper his right to a fair trial. Further, Sgt. Johnson asserted the Investigative Report contained
confidential sources and investigative techniques which would further disfavor disclosure. When
considering these interests against the public’s interest in obtaining this information, the balancing test
substantially favors nondisclosure of the Investigative Report. Therefore, this Court finds that RPD’s
nondisclosure of the Investigative Report was proper.
///
5
In Donery, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered an investigative report released. Donrey. 106 Nev. at 636, 798 P.2d at 148.
The court determined disclosure of the investigative report was proper as no criminal proceeding were pending or anticipated,
no confidential sources or investigative techniques were contained in the report, there was no possibility of denying anyone a
fair trial, and disclosure did not jeopardize law enforcement personnel. Id.

7. 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii. Request for Production No. 2 (Redactions of Police Officers’ Faces)
On June 3, 2020, RPD conducted a sweep of the homeless encampment under the Wells Avenue
overpass. During this sweep Officer Gott6
allegedly made demeaning and threatening comments to the
people living at the encampment. Pet. at 8:1-8. Further, Petitioner alleges RPD refused to allow members
of the media access to the encampment. Id. at 8:12-13.
On June 4, 2020, Petitioner made a public records request for body-worn camera (“BWC”)
footage of Officer Gott from the June 3, 2020 sweep. Upon paying a $75 fee under protest the footage
was made available. Id. at 8:24-27. The footage did not redact the homeless individuals in the video but
did redact the faces of other officers. Id. at 9:1-11.
On December 7, 2020, Petitioner again requested that RPD produce the BWC footage from the
June 3, 2020, sweep without the allegedly improper redactions of officer faces, RPD responded to the
request “Pursuant to NRS 289.025 (Officer’s Bill of Rights), the City of Reno cannot release an
unredacted version of Body Worn Camera.” Id. at 9:20-23. After this response, RPD closed Petitioner’s
public records request. Id. at 9:24.
Petitioner states under Nevada law, all video and audio recordings made by police-worn body
cameras are public records subject to inspection, thus the redactions to the video were improper. Pet. at
15:14-21; see also NRS 289.830(2)(a-b). Petitioner also contends, the redaction of the faces of officers
is improper as, the Nevada Legislature considered an amendment to the Nevada Peace Officers’ Bill of
Rights to include a provision to specifically redact officer faces from BWC in 2019, but such proposed
amendment was rejected. Id. at 9:12-19; see also Pet. at Exhibit 4. Further, Petitioner states RPD failed
to meet its burden to establish it was appropriate to redact officer faces in public places when considering
the important public interest in homelessness. Pet. at 17:22-26.
The City states the faces of the RPD officers in the BWC were properly redacted pursuant to NRS
289.025. Response at 9:17-26. As NRS 289.025(1)7
states: “Except as otherwise provided in subsections
6
Petitioner details to the Court online comments posted by Officer Gott directed to a local homeless advocate, which could
be read to infer Officer Gott harbors negative feelings towards the homeless. Pet. at 7:10-16.
7
The entirety of NRS 289.025 provides:
1.Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3 and NRS 239.0115, the home address and any
photograph of a peace officer in the possession of a law enforcement agency are not public information and
are confidential.

8. 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 and 3 and NRS 239.0115,8
the home address and any photograph of a peace officer in the possession
of a law enforcement agency are not public information and are confidential.” Id. at 9:21-23. The City
contends, BWC footage is a compilation of photographs, which includes photographs of peace officers;
thus, the City asserts NRS 239.0115 is applicable and the BWC footage cannot contain the image of
peace officers as these officers have not authorized release of their images. Id. at 9:23-26. The City also
submits that the release of unredacted BWC footage intrudes on privacy interests of the officers in
avoiding public ridicule. Id. at 10:26-28.
The City states the Nevada Supreme Court recently addressed redactions to BWC footage RAGA,
136 Nev. 28, 458 P.3d 328. Response at 9:27-10:1. The City cites RAGA for its holding that to the extent
NRS 289.830(2) conflicts with the confidentiality provisions listed in the Nevada Public Records Act
(“NPRA”), the more specific confidentiality provisions control. Response at 10:4-6; see also RAGA, 136,
at 34, 458 P.3d at 334 (citing Laird v. State Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 98 Nev. 42, 45, 639 P.2d 1171, 1173
2. The photograph of a peace officer may be released:
(a) If the peace officer authorizes the release; or
(b) If the peace officer has been arrested.
3. The home address of a peace officer may be released if a peace officer has been arrested and the
home address is included in any of the following:
(a) A report of a 911 telephone call.
(b) A police report, investigative report or complaint which a person filed with a law enforcement
agency.
(c) A statement made by a witness.
(d) A report prepared pursuant to NRS 432B.540 by an agency which provides child welfare services,
which report details a plan for the placement of a child.
8
The exceptions in NRS 239.0115 are inapplicable to this matter. As NRS 239.0115 provides:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsection 3, notwithstanding any provision of
law that has declared a public book or record, or a part thereof, to be confidential, if a public book or record
has been in the legal custody or control of one or more governmental entities for at least 30 years, a person
may apply to the district court of the county in which the governmental entity that currently has legal custody
or control of the public book or record is located for an order directing that governmental entity to allow the
person to inspect or copy the public book or record, or a part thereof. If the public book or record pertains
to a natural person, a person may not apply for an order pursuant to this subsection until the public book or
record has been in the legal custody or control of one or more governmental entities for at least 30 years or
until the death of the person to whom the public book or record pertains, whichever is later.
2. There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who applies for an order as described in subsection
1 is entitled to inspect or copy the public book or record, or a part thereof, that the person seeks to inspect
or copy.
3. The provisions of subsection 1 do not apply to any book or record:
(a) Declared confidential pursuant to NRS 463.120.
(b) Containing personal information pertaining to a victim of crime that has been declared by law to be
confidential.

9. 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1982)); City of Sparks, 133 Nev. at 400, 399 P.3d at 355 (stating “it is an accepted rule of statutory
construction that a provision which specifically applies to a given situation will take precedence over one
that applies only generally.”). Specifically, the City claims to determine NRS 289.830(2) would permit
absolute disclosure, would undermine over 400 confidentiality provisions and unreasonably allow the
public access to otherwise confidential records solely because such records are contained in bodycam
footage. Response at 10:6-8; see also RAGA, 136, at 34, 458 P.3d at 334. Therefore, the City claims
pursuant to NRS 289.025, the faces of RPD officers in this BWC footage were redacted. Response at
9:17-20. The City claims NRS 289.025 is applicable as BWC footage is a compilation of photographs in
the possession of RPD. Id. at 9:23-24.
The Court finds RPD properly and justifiably, redacted the officers faces in the BWC. While,
BWC is a public record under NRS 289.830(2)(a-b), the disclosure of an officers photograph is subject
to the explicit protections enumerated in NRS 289.025(1). While Petitioner states a photograph is
distinguishable from BWC, this Court disagrees. As a threshold matter, in the Notice of Plaintiff’s
Exhibits for December 1, 2021 Hearing, Petitioner provided this Court with 49 pages of screen grabs
from BWC (exhibits 4-7). These exhibits were produced, by taking a screengrab (i.e. a photo of a video)
of an officer’s BWC. The result of these screengrabs are clearly photos of an officer that would be subject
to protection under NRS 289.025(1). Holding, the that an officer shall not receive the protection of NRS
289.025(1) for BWC but would be able to receive such protections once a screengrab was made would
produce illogical results. Further, the Court agrees with the City, that a video is merely a compilation of
photos and would be protected under NRS 289.025(1). Therefore, RPD could not produce the unredacted
BWC without the consent of the police officer pursuant to NRS 289.025(1).
Moreover, even if this Court were to apply the CCSD test,9
the Court finds the City has established
that an officer has a nontrivial privacy interest in protecting his likeness from disclosure, as this could
make them more likely to suffer public ridicule and become more easily identifiable to the public. Here,
Petitioner has not met their burden to show a significant public interest would be advance by disclosing
the unredacted video. In the Petition, the significant public interests listed to justify this disclosure were
9
As noted above, the CCSD test requires the government to establish that disclosure would intrude on a personal privacy
interest that is nontrivial or that rises above the de minimis level. CCSD, at 707, 429 P.3d at 320. Upon such a showing, the
burden shifts to the requesting party to show that disclosure is likely to advance a significant public interest. Id. at 707- 08,
429 P.3d at 320.

10. 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“homelessness” and “current issues involving law enforcement are important community and national
issues.” Pet. at 17:24-26. The Petitioner fails to articulate how an unredacted copy of the BWC would
advance these interests.
b. Failure to Meet Statutory Timelines
Petitioner highlights four Requests which concern this suit. See generally Pet. Petitioner alleges
the RPD failed to timely respond to these Requests as proscribed pursuant to NRS 239.0107(1). Id.
i. Request No. 1 and 210
Petitioner details that the response to Request No. 1 was outside of the five-day deadline set forth
in NRS 239.0107(1). Pet. at 4:13-14. Notably, the Request was made on February 28, 2020, and a
response was not given until March 10, 2020. Id. at 4:4-20.
Next, Petitioner states RPD failed to answer their Request No. 211
in a timely matter. Petitioner
alleges RPD created a new public records request on Petitioner’s behalf on December 8, 2020, and RPD
provided a response that within five business days the records would be available. Id. at 10:5-11.
Petitioner states the denial received for this request was untimely as it was not received until December
18, 2020, which was outside of the five-day statutory deadline set forth in NRS 239.0107(1) Pet. at 10:17-
18; see also Pet. at Exhibit 5.
In Republican Attorneys General Association (“RAGA”) v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, the
Nevada Supreme Court explicitly held:
NRS 239.011 unambiguously provides a remedy for when a governmental entity fails to
comply with response requirements in NRS 239.0107(1)(d): apply to the district court and
obtain costs and attorney fees upon prevailing. We do not question that the five-business-
day-response requirement is mandatory. See Leven v. Frey, 123 Nev. 399, 407-08, 168
P.3d 712, 718 (2007) (reasoning that statutes creating time restrictions are generally
construed as mandatory).
Republican Attorneys General Association (“RAGA”) v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
136 Nev. 28, 32, 458 P.3d 328, 332 (2020).
With respect to Request No. 1, RPD failed to respond within five days. RAGA clearly holds that
this five-day response time is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. While the City asserts the
10
As this Court fully addresses Request No. 1 and 2 in section III(a)(i-ii) of this Order, the Court will not detail the factual
background of these requests.
11
There was a $75 charge associated with this Request, which Petitioner maintains was excessive. Id. at 8:24-27. However,
Petitioner was refunded this fee. See Pet. at Exhibit 8; see also Pet. at 12:13-15. Therefore, this matter is moot.

11. 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
response was delayed by staffing shortages and the COVID-19 pandemic this Court cannot find such
justifications would excuse RPD of complying with the timeline established in the NRS 239.0107.12
Further, as stated by the RAGA Court, compliance with the timeline in NRS 239.0107(1) is mandatory.
Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to costs and fees for these delays. Further, as this Court has found that
RPD unreasonably delayed the records by failing to respond within five days as required by statute and
caselaw, attorney’s fees are appropriate pursuant to NRS 239.011(2).13
With respect to Request No. 2, this Court cannot make a determination that the response was
provided outside the statutory timeframe as the letter is dated as December 7, 2020. Pet. at Exhibit 5.
While Petitioner asserts, they did not receive this a response from RPD until December 18, 2020,
Petitioner fails to provide this Court with any exhibit, or an affidavit that the response was received
outside of the statutory timeline. Therefore, this Court cannot make a finding that Request No. 2 was
issued untimely pursuant to NRS 239.0107(1) as Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing the
response was received untimely.
///
///
12
The limited exceptions to providing the record on the fifth business day are as follows:
(c) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d), if the governmental entity is unable to make the public
book or record available by the end of the fifth business day after the date on which the person who has
legal custody or control of the public book or record received the request:
(1) Provide to the person, in writing, notice of the fact that it is unable to make the public book or
record available by that date and the earliest date and time after which the governmental entity reasonably
believes the public book or record will be available for the person to inspect or copy or after which a copy
of the public book or record will be available to the person. If the public book or record or the copy of the
public book or record is not available to the person by that date and time, the governmental entity shall
provide to the person, in writing, an explanation of the reason the public book or record is not available and
a date and time after which the governmental entity reasonably believes the public book or record will be
available for the person to inspect or copy or after which a copy of the public book or record will be available
to the person.
(2) Make a reasonable effort to assist the requester to focus the request in such a manner as to
maximize the likelihood the requester will be able to inspect, copy or receive a copy of the public book or
record as expeditiously as possible.
See NRS 239.0107(1)(c)(1-2).
13
NRS 239.011(2) provides in the relevant part, “If the requester prevails, the requester is entitled to recover from the
governmental entity that has legal custody or control of the record his or her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in the
proceeding.”

12. 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii. Request No. 3
Petitioner then directs the Court to its request for production no. 3 in which Petitioner made a
public records request on July 28, 2020, for “Copies of all complaints of officer misconduct filed against
RPD officers in the past five years.” Pet. at 10:20-22. On August 4, 2020, the RPD issued this response
regarding the request:
The City of Reno has received your public records request dated July 28, 2020. Our office
has begun researching your records request. Please note, all confidential propriety, or
protected information will be redacted from the released records. Consequently, due to
staffing constraints caused by the current Declaration of Emergency regarding COVID-
19, we anticipate that any records identified will be made available to you by October 1,
2020.
Pet. at 11:1-4. Further, on October 2, 2020, RPD issued the following update:
Our office has begun researching and identifying non-exempt records responsive to your
request. Consequently, additional time is necessary to properly respond to your request
for the following reasons: Due to staffing constraints. OR Due to the voluminous nature
of your request. We will notify you within 10 business days from 10/02/2020 as to whether
the City is in possession of non-exempt records responsive to your request.
Id. at 11:8-11. Petitioner asserts the records were not provided within 10 business days from October 2,
2020, and did not hear anything from RPD for months. Id. at 11:13-15. Rather, Petitioner sent follow up
inquiries regarding the request on December 7, 2020 and January 8, 2021. Id. at 11:15-19. On January
14, 2021, RPD issued another response stating:
The Reno Police Department has received your public records request dated July 28, 2020
wherein you requested the following: Copies of all complaints of officer misconduct filed
against RPD officers in the past five years. Our office has begun researching and
identifying non-exempt records responsive to your request. Consequently, due to
CRITICAL STAFFING, we anticipate that any records identified will be made available
to you by 01/20/2021.
Id. at 11:22-25. On January 15, 2021, Mr. Bony wrote a letter to Petitioner in which he stated, “Please
excuse the untimely response as this office learned of your request on January 14, 2021.” Pet. at Exhibit
6. Petitioner then retained counsel and issued a demand letter in which Petitioner sent a list of grievances
detailing the outstanding public record requests. Pet. at 12:3-9; see also Pet. at Exhibit 7. After this letter
was sent, Mr. Bony requested a meeting with the parties to discuss Petitioner’s outstanding records

13. 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requests and a meeting was held on January 28, 2021. Id. at 12:10-12. On February 11 and 26, 2021, Mr.
Bony and Petitioner’s counsel corresponded regarding the requests for records made by Petitioner. Id. at
12:13-20; see also Pet. at Exhibit 8-9. However, starting February 18, 2021, through March 9, 2021, RPD
released the records which was more than seven months after the original request was made. Pet. at 12:21-
25.
With respect to this Request, RPD responded to Petitioner within the five days timeline as
required by statute. However, in these responses, RPD set numerous deadlines to Petitioner in which they
asserted they would provide the necessary records to Petitioner. However, RPD failed to comply with
these self-imposed deadlines, and did not update Petitioner regarding this matter for months. A failure to
communicate with Petitioner for months is not a “reasonable effort” under NRS 239.0107(1)(c)(2).
Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to costs and fees for these delays. Further, as this Court has found that
RPD unreasonably delayed the records by failing to respond to Petitioner for months, attorney’s fees are
appropriate pursuant to NRS 239.011(2).
iii. Request No. 4
On September 16, 2020, Petitioner placed a Request for “Copies or a list (or whatever available
digital format) of training offered to RPD personnel in the past five years.” Id. at 13:2-4. On October 8,
2020, RPD provided an update on this matter:
Sorry for the delay in response. The Reno Police Department has received your public
records request dated September 16, 2020 wherein you requested the following: Copies
or a list (or whatever available digital format of trainings offered to RPD personnel in the
past five years. Our office has begun researching and identifying non-exempt records
responsible to your request. Consequently, due to critical staffing, we anticipate that any
records identified will be made available to you by 11/15/20 or earlier.
Id. at 13:9-13. Petitioner asserts this response, was three weeks after the initial requests which is outside
the statutory time frame required for a response. Id. at 13:7-8.
On December 2, 2020, the records were provided which were merely a spreadsheet listing various
general trainings officers undergo. Id. at 13:14-16. On January 8, 2021, Petitioner requested more detailed
responsive records and provided an example of what he was seeking. Id. at 13:17-18; see also Pet. at
Exhibit 11. On February 19, 2021, RPD emailed Petitioner the following:
///

14. 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In order to provide that information a staff member would need to pull the files on each
of those classes to locate a training roster and then enter that information into a new
document. Given the large number of classes that were on the list, that would take a
considerable amount of staff time to complete. Is there a particular class or classes that
you are interested in knowing the number of attendees? Again, please feel free to give me
a call to discuss.
Pet. at Exhibit 12. The parties then had a dispute regarding the information that would be produced as
RPD contended the manner in which Petitioner requested the information would require RPD to create a
new record which is impermissible. Pet. at 13:28-14:26. On March 18, 2021, responsive records were
produced six months after the original public records request. Id. at 15:1-3.
Again, RPD failed to respond within the timeline proscribed in NRS 239.0107(1). Therefore,
Petitioner is entitled to costs and fees for these delays. Further, as this Court has found that RPD
unreasonably delayed the records by failing to respond within five days as required by statute and
caselaw, attorney’s fees are appropriate pursuant to NRS 239.011(2).
Based upon the foregoing and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent
with this Order.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall receive costs and fees.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall receive attorney’s fees.14
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of this Order the total costs, fees and attorney’s fees with accompanying detail for prosecution
of all issues presented by the Petition and identify the specific costs, fees and attorney’s fees that shall be
awarded consistent with this Order.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the City shall have ten (10) days to respond to the
memorandum of costs filed by Petitioner.
///
14
The court may consider the following factors to determine if the legal fee is reasonable (1) the qualities of the advocate: his
ability, his training, education, experience, professional standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be done: its
difficulty, its intricacy, its importance, time and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the prominence and character
of the parties where they affect the importance of the litigation; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time
and attention given to the work; (4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived. Brunzell
v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969).

15. 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall five (5) days to reply and submit the
matter to the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th
day of February, 2022.
KATHLEEN M. DRAKULICH
DISTRICT JUDGE

16. 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CASE NO. CV21-00875
I certify that I am an employee of the SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the STATE
OF NEVADA, COUNTY OF WASHOE; that on the 10th
day of February, 2022, I electronically filed
the ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITION with the Clerk of the
Court by using the ECF system.
I further certify that I transmitted a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by the
method(s) noted below:
Electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice
of electronic filing to the following:
ROBERT BONY, ESQ. for RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
STEPHANIE RICE, ESQ. for ROBERT A. CONRAD
MARK DUNAGAN, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
Deposited to the Second Judicial District Court mailing system in a sealed envelope for postage and
mailing by Washoe County using the United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada: [NONE]
___________________________________
Department 1 Judicial Assistant