Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

OUR NEV. JUDGES, INC. v. DIST. CT. (THE DOE 1 TRUST) (CIVIL)

Nevada Supreme Court

• Citations: 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 16

• Docket Number: 89600

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

142 Nev., Advance Opinion \o

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

OUR NEVADA JUDGES, INC., A No. 89600
NEVADA NONPROFIT

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE FIRST, SECOND, AND EIGHTH F L E D
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FEB 26 2026
STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE |.

COUNTIES OF CARSON CITY, CL EAS SUnEMe OOURT
WASHOE, AND CLARK, a
RESPECTIVELY; THE HONORABLE ee

LYNNE K. JONES AND GREGORY G.
GORDON, DISTRICT COURT JUDGES;
AND THE HONORABLE EDMUND
GORMAN, PROBATE
COMMISSIONER,
Respondents,

and
THE DOE 1 TRUST; DOES 1
THROUGH 9: STEVE EGGLESTON:
CANDACE MCDONALD; MICHAEL
MCDONALD; AND DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES, CLARK COUNTY,
NEVADA,
Real Parties in Interest.

Original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging district
court orders denying certain media access requests in the First Judicial,
Second Judicial, and Eighth Judicial District Courts.

Petition dented.

Luke A. Busby, Reno,

for Petitioner.

Supreme Court
oF 2e-9gg0(V

NEVADA

iO) 197A SB

Supreme Court
OF
NevaDA

(7, MIA, oe

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Jessica E. Whelan, Chief Deputy Solicitor
General-Litigation, and Sabrena K. Clinton, Senior Deputy Attorney
General, Carson City,

for Respondent Judge Lynne K. Jones.

Gregory G. Gordon, District Judge, Clark County,
for Respondent Judge Gregory G. Gordon,

Leonard Law, PC, and Debbie Leonard, Reno,
for Respondent First Judicial District Court.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Jordan T. Smith and Brianna
smith, Las Vegas; Solomon Dwiggins Freer & Steadman, Ltd., and Alex G.
LeVeque, Alan D. Freer, and Dana A. Dwiggins, Las Vegas,

for Real Party in Interest Doe 9.

Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, and Amity C. Latham, Chief Deputy
District Attorney, Clark County,
for Real Party in Interest Clark County Family Services.

Clark Hill PLLC and Paola M. Armeni, Las Vegas,
for Real Party in Interest Steve Eggleston.

Snell & Wilmer LLP and Kelly H. Dove, William E. Peterson, and Clark C.
Knobel, Reno,
for Real Parties in Interest Does 3-8.

Maupin, Cox & LeGoy and Michaelle D. Rafferty, Rick R. Hsu, Christopher
M. Stanko, and Michelle Mowry-Willems, Reno,
for Real Party in Interest Doe 1.

Pecos Law Group and Jack W. Fleeman, Henderson,
for Real Party in Interest Candace McDonald.

Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust and Kent R. Robison, Reno,
for Real Party in Interest Doe 2.

bo

SupPREME Court
OF
NEVADA

(On 107A aR

Michael McDonald, White Hills, Arizona,
Pro Se.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PICKERING, CADISH, and LEE, JJ.

OPINION
PER CURIAM:

In this original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus,
petitioner Our Nevada Judges, Inc., a press organization, petitions the court
“to provide clear direction to judges, court administrators, and court clerks
on how to properly follow the United States Constitution, the Nevada
Constitution, and Nevada’s Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records
(SRCR) such that the First Amendment right to access to Courts is
preserved and available to the press and the public.” In so doing, Our
Nevada Judges challenges three distinct district court orders denying, in
some fashion, access to the court proceedings in three unrelated cases
instituted in three different district courts. We take this opportunity to
clarify that disparate claims for writ relief cannot be joined in such a

manner and deny the instant petition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORIES
In the Second Judicial District Court, Our Nevada Judges
requested to access and video record the hearings in a trust case where the
district court had previously entered an order sealing the court file and
closing the hearings to the public; the request was denied. In the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Our Nevada Judges requested that the confidential

case file and docket in a termination of parental rights case be unsealed so

Supreme Court

OF

Nevaba

ISA

BE

that upcoming hearings could be monitored, which was granted in part as
to unsealing the docket index showing upcoming hearing dates and times,
but denied as to unsealing the entire case record. And finally, in the First
Judicial District Court, Our Nevada Judges sought to unseal the case file in
an NRS Chapter 432B child protection case, which was granted to the
extent that only certain information that SRCR 3(5) required to be available
for public viewing was ordered unsealed. Our Nevada Judges filed a single
petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district courts’ orders
denying access to the sealed dockets and/or requests to electronically record
hearing proceedings. It named as respondents the three district courts, two
district judges, and a probate commissioner. Real parties in interest are the
parties directly involved in each of the three cases. The petition seeks
specific and distinctive relief against the judges in two of these cases, as
well as an overarching writ directed to the court clerks in the First, Second,
and Highth Judicial District Courts concerning sealing practices in general.

At this point, the hearings that petitioner sought to access have
already concluded, and, in some instances, the cases below are now closed.
Certain real parties in interest have filed motions to dismiss the petition as
moot, at least as to the matter involving them, or to sever the writ
proceeding. We decline to reach those issues and deny the motions as moot,
as we conclude that Our Nevada Judges improperly joined these matters

into a single petition, precluding our review.

DISCUSSION

Writ relef is an extraordinary remedy, and whether to
entertain a writ petition on its merits lies solely within this court’s
discretion. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d
849, 851, 853 (1991). A writ of mandamus is available to compel an act

required by law and may be issued “where the lower court has manifestly

Supreme Court
OF
NEVADA

(Oy PTA Rb

abused [its] discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.”. Walker v.
Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020); see
also NRS 34.160 (“The writ may be issued . . . to compel the performance of
an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station... .”). Additionally, “[t]his court has considered writ petitions when
doing so will clarify a substantial issue of public policy or precedential value,
and where the petition presents a matter of first impression and
considerations of judicial economy support its review.” Washoe Cnty. Hum.
Serus. Agency v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 874, 876, 521 P.3d 1199,
1203 (2022) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Petitioners
bear the burden of proving such intervention is necessary. Pan v. Eighth
Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

With hmited exception, separate claims for writ relief cannot be
joined in a single petition. See Thomas Carl Spelling, Treatise on
Injunctions and Other Extraordinary Remedies Covering Habeas Corpus,
Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari or Review § 1656, at
1428 (2d ed. 1901) (“Separate claims against a state officer cannot be joined
in an application for a mandamus.”). One such exception is that claims
arising out of the same transaction or connected with the same subject
matter may be joined if permitted by court rule or statute. See, e.g., NRCP
18. But even then, when granting writ relief on such claims would require
mandating officials to take actions that do not relate to each other, joinder
is not appropriate. See Spelling, supra, at 1428 (“(U]nder a code provision
that causes of action arising out of the same transaction, or transactions
connected with the same subject, may be joined, a[ | [writ of mandamus] to

the board of commissioners to canvass the petition of the taxpayers of one

Supreme Court
OF
NEvaDA

LOY 197A aS

township for an election in aid of a railroad, and to fix the date of election
in several others, is bad for misjoinder.”).

Our Nevada Judges filed this petition for a writ of mandamus
“seek[ing] a writ to three Courts on the same essential grounds,” combining
separate claims against different state officers into one petition under an
overarching argument that “[t]he unilateral sealing policies of court clerks
have created an unconstitutional system of secret proceedings.” As an
initial matter, Our Nevada Judges fails to provide any authority that
supports such a combined petition and merely asserts that the combined
petition “promotes judicial economy.” See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669,
673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) (“It is appellant’s responsibility to present relevant
authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be
addressed by this court.”). Moreover, the type of relief sought and granted
or denied below differs between each case, and the statutes and
confidentiality requirements that apply to the proceedings—a trust case, a
termination of parental rights case, and a child protection case—are
distinct, see, e.g., NRS 164.041 (addressing confidentiality and sealing in
trust cases); NRS 128.090 (addressing confidentiality and sealing in
termination of parental rights cases); NRS 432B.280 (addressing
confidentiality in child protection cases); NRS 432B.430 (addressing closure
of proceedings in child protection cases), making this court’s combined
review difficult.

When considering the public's access to the courts and whether
to order closure of any proceeding, the district court is compelled to engage
in individualized, “thoughtful, reasoned judicial decision-making... in
identifying the compelling interests at stake.” Falconi v. Eighth Jud. Dist.
Ct., 140 Nev. 79, 87, 543 P.8d 92, 99 (2024). The personal interests at stake

SUPREME COURT
OF
Nevapa

(2) MITA etigiien

are necessarily particular to each real party in interest, and the public
interest will vary by case type as well. Individualized decisions by the
district court require individualized review by the appellate court. Filing a
single petition here detracts from the purpose of the writ—to compel
performance of an act that the law enjoins—as the district court’s decisions
regarding confidentiality and sealing of civil proceedings will necessarily
differ by case type and Our Nevada Judges argues different actions are
required of the different judges and clerks below. See NRS 34.160: cf.
Morneault v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 83580, 2021 WL 4947888, *1
(Oct. 22, 2021) (declining to join writ petitions where the petitioners sought
different rehef).
CONCLUSION

Our Nevada Judges has not demonstrated that the claims
raised in this petition should be considered together in a single petition.

Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Therefore, the petition is denied.

Pickering J
Cadish
d.
Lee VU -
7