- Quickdraw McLaw
- 44 Comments
- 418 Views
One of the commenters yesterday suggested today’s topic:
The whole sealing of cases (in the absence of a pending criminal investigation or national security implications) is a completely different issue and is completely opposite to the concept of an open and transparent government (including the judiciary).
Do you agree? Are too many cases in Nevada sealed or are we one of the more open states? Or is it both?
The sealing rules are clear and fair. I don't understand the problem.
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/SCR_RGSRCR.html
I can't find the existence of this Welthy Silva's case on the court docket at all yet SCR Rule 5(c) prohibits the sealing of the existence of the case and requires that a certain amount of minimal information be available to the public. I get that they don't want the child's name showing up, fine – redact that. I should be able to see that this woman filed a case with the court, or that a case was filed against her, and see, on the docket, that there is an order sealing the case. A search of family court records online shows no case whatsoever by searching for last name 'Silva' and first name 'Welthy'. How would that be in compliance with the rules?
While the sealing rules are clear, a number of district court judgess, especially in the family division of the Eighth frequently ignore the sealing rules. And if a family case is sealed it is not possible to find it on the public information website for the Eighth, even if you have the case number. It just shows up as there being no such case.
Not commenting on the equities of this case or who is right and who is wrong, or to what degree(I don't know), or how the judge should have handled matters differently(that was discussed extensively yesterday).
My only observation(admittedly totally irrelevant, gratuitous, and apropos of nothing) is that I think Welthy Silva is a real cool sounding name.
You know, it really is a cool name.
the issue lies with the Clerk's office not publicly listing the case in Odyssey. The complaint and decree can never be sealed, and judges don't seal cases beyond the statutory authority. no conspiracies here, folks, Clerk's office…
NSC question for the vets of the appellate world.. Will the NSC post the forthcoming opinions today, should there be any, due to Nevada day? They did so for the Jewish holiday the week of September 25th.
Appellate veteran here, but I'm confused. Nevada Day is celebrated on Friday, so opinions will still be released on Thursday, if there are any, so Forthcominion Opinions would still be on Wednesday. Am I missing something?
9:10– You are 100 percent correct.
This no NSC opinion whining is getting a little old. I agree they could be a little faster, but they're pretty much on pace to match prior years' output. And that's with Saitta's retirement last summer and with Stiglich just starting over the winter (if you don't think that had an impact on this year's output then you don't understand the appellate process). Maybe I'm too much of an apologist, but my god I just can't take the whining. #blogisrepetitive
What whining? 8:30 just asked what day the Clerk will announce the Forthcoming Opinions this week and made no comment about productivity or number of opinions.
And yes, you are far too much of an apologist if you think matching the pathetic output of past years which has led to ridiculous backlogs is in any manner acceptable. Don't proudly tell us that are consistently continuing the history of bad backlogs now that you got the three CoA Judges you wanted. Tell me how it is (or when it will be) getting better.
@10:47 – as 10:23 remarked, the NSC is on track to match its opinions with last year. Not every case is opinion-worthy; while I think there are cases that should be issued as opinions but are issued as orders, the real statistic is whether the backlog is reduced by a significant number year-over-year.
If the backlog goes down a minuscule amount or goes up, then the NSC is slacking (absent a huge uptick in case filings). But if it goes down a significant percentage, say 25% or more, then they're making headway.
Either way, we don't know until we see the statistics that come out in the annual report.
@10:59– Honestly the issue is not Opinions v. Orders in my book. Everything is citeable now from the NSC. The issue is backlog. There were 7 jurists capable of issuing opinions (although it was really 2 panels of 3 with the CJ only rotating in and doing en bancs). If you look at it as 7 jurists that were increased to 10 jurists with the CoA, productivity should reasonably have been anticipated to be increased by 43%. Has the number of decisions issued by the Nevada appellate courts increased by 43%? Are cases getting resolved 43% faster? Even 30% faster. Having tracked it, the answer appears to be no.
Canon 2 of the Nevada Code of Judicial Canons states "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently." Rule 2.5 and its comments thereunder states that diligence means "Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires. . . [being] expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end." This notion that everything fine and the Supremes are not required to expeditiously decide cases is ludicrous. This notion that we have to wait year after year for the Court to evaluate itself is ludicrous. If they cannot decide cases expeditiously, or feel that they above the canons, then step aside. The Court has been cracking down on people who do not timely pay their filing fee or file their briefs; that is a fantastic improvement. They are holding counsel and parties much more responsible for timely performance. The issue is that the Court does not hold itself to any form of accountability on timeliness.
I'd actually disagree that the backlog is the "real statistic." What really matters is the number of cases resolved and number of opinions produced. What happens if the court gets an annual increase of 500 case filings but actually increases the number of cases it resolves? Nobody ever talks about whether there has been an increase in filings. Do your homework, then complain. #blogisevenmorerepetitive
@11:25– I entirely disagree with you. If the Court gets an annual increase of 500 case filings, then the Court has to figure out a way to resolve 500 additional cases expeditiously, whether that means shove more off to the CoA, resolve more cases by Orders of Affirmance without analysis, whatever.
True, the Court cannot control the number of cases coming into the system, but it has the duty and authority to solely control what happens with those cases once in the system. What seems repetitive is that the problems are not getting better.
I think the backlog is a real statistic to the extent that it also reflects the number of cases filed and disposed in a given year. It is not so significant a number, even if growing, if the number of cases disposed of in a given year is equal to or larger than the prior year's disposed case statistic.
I agree that the justices' are unable to control the volume coming in through the front door (short of enacting rules that have a chilling effect of seeking review), but have near complete control on what happens to the cases once filed.
As a taxpayer, I am less concerned with the backlog number so long as the productivity level of the court is maintained and improved. If the facts reflect that the court is running in an efficient manner, disposing of greater and greater number of cases yet has a growing backlog then that would indicate that further resources may be needed. If however the backlog is growing but the number of new cases is constant or reducing it would indicate additional resources may not be the problem but rather inefficiency is the culprit.
I generally believe in transparency, but there is an arbitrary and often unfair element to issues surrounding sealing and confidentiality.
I'm not suggesting that sealing and confidentiality are the same thing in Nevada, and others can far better explain the differences, so my remarks just center around general observations of what's available to the public and what is not.
The priority system concerning how this rules operate in actuality is somewhat off, IMO.
Violent juvenile offenders receive privacy, and their cases (I suppose there are exceptions) are generally not available for the public to view. But in a Family Court case, everything concerning a child and his/her family are an open book(unless a particular case is ordered sealed) and that potentially exposes a child to serious shame, gossip, emotional damage and ridicule(if others access the records) when often the child has no real fault, but only the misfortune to be born to vicious, shameless parents who spend the family's next egg to publicly trumpet how awful the other parent supposedly is.
A couple of initial thoughts come to mind as a result of these comments…
In the context of juvenile offenders, I do not believe that complete removal of the records from public scrutiny is appropriate as that prevents the public (the voters) the ability of observing the behavior and decisions of the judicial officer in weighing whether to retain said officer. A better practice would be to list the case name more in line with termination of parental rights and other juvenile type cases… In re: J.D. or State of Nevada v. J.D. (can also redact the public version of the complaint, orders, etc to replace the real name with the initials).
In plain domestic cases (divorce, custody, etc.), I don't believe that the cases files or videos should be hidden. Other than perhaps allegations child molestation or other significant allegations directly linked to the child, I don't see the parties potential embarrassment substantially outweighing the public's right to supervise the instruments of government to insure faithful compliance with the laws of the state and the upholding of the oath of office. In those cases, if a particular pleading presents a compelling reason for confidentiality, the document could be filed under seal with just the title of the document reflected in the public file. Similarly, if the concern is about the child's privacy, their name could be replaced with their initials (granted anyone that knows the family would be able to decode the initials since the parents name would be public).
If the family truly had some legitimate concern that was outside the ordinary case issues that needed to be addressed, it could be presented in a specific motion to the court for appropriate protective remedies, with a public hearing either prior to or subsequent to the imposition of the remedies so that the public could be given an opportunity to be heard on those remedies.
Perhaps an old fashioned concept could also help reduce the volume and venom in family law cases… it used to be called shaming. Less fraudulent and false allegations would likely be thrown against each other if the parties knew that others might see them in their true light (not the personas they project when they believe people are watching).
Finally, in a case that confidentiality is appropriate (a high profile family with unusual security needs, high profile kids, etc.) the parties always have the option to utilizing the private judging rules, (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Legal/LawLibrary/CourtRules/NATR.html).
While these rules provide that the cases are governed by the same sealing and redacting rules that govern the district court, It is less likely that the nosy neighbor or curious co-employee will seek to review the records from the private judge.
Just my 2 cents on the issue…
So I caught myself doing something today that I wonder if other people do. Filed a new case. Once the file stamped Complaint came back, I found that I was assigned to what might be considered a less than astute department. However I found myself happy because I thought this jurist is so stupid that I probably can get away with a lot of stuff. Anyone else ever pleased that they get a less than stellar jurist?
They're all less than stellar. Even the "good" ones are too swamped to pay attention to anything.
There's one dept I preempt automatically and everyone else is what it is.
Agreed they're all too swamped; should additional judges be added to the bench? If so, how many?
As many as we can without raising my taxes.
So none then. Your answer is none.
Start charging 3x more to file tort cases which will initially only hurt insurance companies until it gets so bad that insurance rates bump up.
How does raising the filing fees to file personal injury cases going to hurt insurance companies? Aren't plaintiff fees much higher than the cost to answer a complaint? I only see this really affecting personal injury attorneys, not insurance companies.
The answer to 'how does raising the filing fees in PI cases hurt insurance companies' is a democratic answer (there are more individuals than insurance companies so the majority gets to decide) – We make the 'other guy' pay more of the costs. We reduce the filing fees for filing PI lawsuits if you are an individual and triple the cost of filing fees for filing responses if you are an insurance company. BAM.
Discuss…..
Tripling the filing fees has no effect on insurance companies. It also has no discernible effect on Plaintiff's attorneys. It will simply be an additional cost of litigation, of a somewhat nominal amount. Raising the fees will discourage very few filings. It may have some very small effect on the few P.I. cases which are pro per filings, but will only deter the most borderline of cases where attorneys represent someone. If a case is worth suing on, it is easily worth a few hundred more for the right to sue. Any case that is not filed as a result of the increased filing fees, is probably a very nominal, or even frivolous , case to begin with.
So, raising the fees has no real effect, except to increase the operating funds of the Clerk's Office.
3:56 is correct. Plaintiff attorneys file suit all the time, sometimes even if the case is already settled, especially if a SOL is coming up.
Because 1) it's the client's money, and 2) better safe than sorry, especially when "sorry" means a legal malpractice claim. If those fees were to increase, it would not change that calculation one bit.
I know that judges and police officers get their names hidden from public on recorder's website. Should they get automatic sealing when they file for divorce?
No. If you want to redact home addresses for police officers and judges, so be it. But you are a member of the public and a public employee. Arguably there should be more transparency rather than less about public employees.
With SFR pool(2014) ruling NSC is overloaded with similar cases.
OSTs in EJDC. If the OST is silent on a briefing schedule, when is an opposition due? Is there a rule on point? If not, is it time for a rule?
No rule addresses the opp due date.
Prior to the hearing or give oral opposition…
I love when you get the always helpful (snark) "look at the rule on orders shortening time" from chambers. I have, it's silent; have you?
Why shoukd a family law cases public? It is marital and custody issues. Where is the public need for that? If both parties agree. I understand regular civil cases but family issues seem more private.
Because they are electing to utilize taxpayer paid for services to deal with their private issues. Once they decide to use the publicly funded system, the public, as the employer of the publicly funded institution, has an interest and right to know how their employees (judge, court staff, etc.) are fulfilling their duties and performing their job.
I could understand if the law wanted to extend some level of confidentiality to a stipulated petition as the judge/court employees are performing more of a ministerial function than actually exercising the power of the state, but the judgment is public anyways (see NRS 125.110).
The performance of the Judge, whether they correctly apply the law, their demeanor, competency, etc. is always relevant and of the public interest. The public has a right to evaluate the performance of its employees and determine whether that employee should be retained.
If my wife and I decide to split and agree to everything why should that be public record? The court is performing clerical duties and their is only one way to finalize a divorce, which is file in the court.
Then you and your wife split it privately and file a Joint Petition which states that you have divided everything privately and do not need the Court's assistance in dividing matters. But if you want to use the Court system to enforce or protect your rights, then you have invoked the Court's resources and have waived your rights to be secretive.
I just saw something on YouTube that will certainly be posted here soon. I don't want to post it, but it's gonna be interesting to see when it does get posted. #BartSimpson
That video is sad and plaintiff counsel is a douche for letting it even start. Clearly Bart Simpson had some personal issues going. Be human and help the guy, not to mention help your client whose case just went to shit because of your failure to stop this from happening.
Agreed I've seen the video and Plaintiff's Counsel should have shut that down ASAP. Defense Counsel gave deponent several "outs" which P's Counsel should have seized upon
Post the link.
Nah. Somebody else do it.