USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Leon F Mead, Mead Law Group
Rule 26 of the NRCP requires supplementa- tion of expert disclosures, as needed, both with regard to information contained in any previously produced report and to information provided during the deposition of a disclosed expert. Therein, the deadline for completing such expert supplements is required to be “by the time the party’s disclosures under Rule 16.1(a)(3), 16.2(f), or 16.205(f) are due”. These rules refer to pre- trial disclosures, which are due 30 days prior to the scheduled trial date. There is disagreement among Nevada judges and other third-party neutrals about whether such supplements are appropriately made after the expert deadlines agreed upon pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the NRCP 16.1 or after the over- all close of discovery. As such, supplemental reports prepared by an expert after the initial disclosure deadline ‒ whether 90 days prior to the close of discovery or otherwise ‒ should be provided with a motion for leave to supplement the same, as a matter of good practice. Document discovery responses Document discovery request responses are also handled in a different manner in Nevada than in some other jurisdictions. As a matter of practice, responding to written discovery must be useful ‒ although this is not specifically provided in the NRCP. In responding to Requests for Produc- tion, for example, it is not sufficient for a party to state “responsive documents will be provided within a reasonable time” as is customary in oth- er jurisdictions (eg, California). In written discovery responses, documents must be identified by Bates number or another rea- sonable method of identification. Alternatively, documents must be well organised and catego- rised, so as to avoid confusion on the part of the opposing party – whether intentional or acciden-
tal. Nevada judges, discovery commissioners, and other neutrals will require this, if not done as a matter of course. Discovery disputes – automatic referral to discovery commissioner in certain districts The NRCP generally outlines how to handle discovery disputes ‒ although the way in which those disputes will actually be handled is driven by local rules. Pursuant to Rules 16.1(d) and 16.3 of the NRCP, all discovery disputes are automati- cally referred to the discovery commissioners for resolution if the judicial district where the case is pending has discovery commissioners. As not- ed earlier, there are eleven districts of Nevada courts, which all have distinct resources and local rules of procedure. Thus, the NRCP must be followed in conjunction with the local rules of a particular district. By way of example, in the Eighth Judicial District ‒ located in both Clark County and Las Vegas, Nevada ‒ discovery disputes are not routinely handled by the judge presiding over the mat- ter, with limited exceptions for cases assigned to specialty courts (eg, the “business court”). Rather, each district also has its own meet-and- confer requirements, which must be followed as dictated by local court rules. In the Eighth Dis- trict, exhaustive meet-and-confer attempts must be made before submitting a discovery dispute to the discovery commissioner for resolution, and a failure to make acceptable attempts to resolve discovery issues with counsel will likely result in denial of discovery motions and poten- tially sanctions being issued. The Eighth Judicial District has a designated discovery commissioner and an ADR com- missioner. The local rules regarding practising before the courts therein are segregated by type of practice, as follows:
1498 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook