Exclusion of Metropolitan Police Departments from Nevada’s Judicial Confirmation Law and the NPRA’s Exclusive Public Records Remedy

Introduction

In In re: Public Records Request to Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t (141 Nev., Advance Opinion 26, May 29, 2025), the Supreme Court of Nevada addressed two interrelated questions: whether a metropolitan police department is a “municipality” eligible to invoke the Judicial Confirmation Law (JCL), and whether a governmental entity may seek declaratory relief to resolve a dispute under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA). The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) had filed a petition under the JCL to clarify its disclosure obligations after media outlets sought its criminal investigative file in a high-profile sexual‐assault matter involving Kathryn Mayorga and Cristiano Ronaldo. The district court dismissed the JCL petition and denied LVMPD’s motion to amend to add a declaratory‐relief claim. Mayorga’s counterclaim was also dismissed. LVMPD appealed, and Mayorga cross‐appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court. First, it held that under NRS 43.080 and 43.060—the statutory definitions of “municipality” and “governing body” in the JCL—a metropolitan police department like LVMPD is neither a municipality nor governed by a multi‐member legislative body capable of filing a JCL petition. Second, the Court ruled that the NPRA provides a mandatory, time‐specific procedure for responding to record requests and does not permit a governmental entity to bypass that procedure by seeking declaratory relief. Finally, because LVMPD could not maintain either the JCL petition or a declaratory‐relief claim, Mayorga’s answer and counterclaim were moot and properly dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224 (2008) – Standard for NRCP 12(b)(5) motions and de novo review.
• Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 109 Nev. 280 (1993) – Review standard for denial of leave to amend.
• Las Vegas Review-Journal v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 139 Nev. 69 (2023) – Plain‐meaning interpretation of NPRA and liberal construction rule.
• Leven v. Frey, 123 Nev. 399 (2007) – Statutory interpretation principles for ambiguous provisions.
• Filarsky v. Superior Court, 49 P.3d 194 (Cal. 2002) – California’s public records act as exclusive remedy barring government‐initiated declaratory relief.
• City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) – Permitting government entities to seek declaratory relief under Texas law.
• Burlington Sch. Dist. v. Provost, 224 A.3d 841 (Vt. 2019) – School district’s right to declaratory judgment in public records context.

Legal Reasoning

1. Definition of “Municipality” under the JCL (NRS 43.080)
The Court began with the plain text of NRS 43.080, which enumerates state entities, political subdivisions and “other corporate and politic” bodies but does not list police departments. Using the canon that specific statutory listings exclude unlisted items, the Court concluded LVMPD does not qualify. Similarly, NRS 43.060 defines “governing body” as a multi‐member legislative board or commission. LVMPD is governed by a single elected sheriff and subject to fiscal oversight by a county‐city committee, not a multi‐member body with legislative power. LVMPD’s analogy to NRS 41’s “political subdivision” definition failed because JCL’s own definitions control.

2. Declaratory Relief and the NPRA (NRS 239.010-239.011)
The NPRA requires a governmental entity, within five business days of a public‐records request, to (a) provide the records, (b) identify the records’ custodian, (c) estimate a production date, or (d) cite a confidentiality provision. This mandatory procedure, the Court held, leaves no room for a competing declaratory‐relief action by the entity. Though NRS 239.011(4) provides that “rights and remedies” to a requester are in addition to any others, it refers only to remedies for the requester when a public body fails or refuses to comply. The Court distinguished conflicting out‐of‐state cases, aligning instead with jurisdictions that deem public‐records statutes the exclusive remedy for records disputes.

3. Counterclaim and Issue Preclusion
Since LVMPD could not maintain any action under either the JCL or by declaratory relief, Mayorga’s answer and counterclaim had no operative petition to oppose. Moreover, Mayorga’s challenge to Ronaldo’s privilege determination was barred by issue preclusion: a federal court had already ruled the Football Leaks documents privileged.

Impact on Future Cases and Public‐Records Law

This decision provides a clear rule for Nevada entities: only those bodies explicitly defined in NRS 43.080, governed by a multi‐member legislative body under NRS 43.060, may invoke the JCL. Local departments, agencies or single‐office entities cannot. Moreover, governmental entities facing NPRA requests must adhere strictly to the five‐day statutory procedures and may not seek declarations to circumvent them. This will guide city attorneys, county counsel and municipalities when advising agencies on state‐law remedies for records disputes, ensuring timely disclosure and reducing forum shopping.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Municipality” vs. “Political Subdivision”
Under the JCL, “municipality” is a specific term listing certain state bodies and local districts. It does not include every governmental unit; a “political subdivision” in other statutes may have a broader meaning.

“Governing Body”
A “governing body” is a group of elected or appointed members (e.g., a city council), not an individual officeholder.

Declaratory Relief
A lawsuit asking a court to declare the rights of parties under a statute. Here, the NPRA gives requesters their own statutory path; it does not grant agencies a parallel lawsuit to resolve the same dispute.

Issue Preclusion
Once a court decides an issue of law or fact, parties cannot relitigate it in a later case if the same issue arises between the same parties.

Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in In re Public Records Request to LVMPD clarifies two important principles: the Judicial Confirmation Law’s narrow definition of “municipality” excludes local police departments, and the Nevada Public Records Act prescribes an exclusive, expedited process for agencies responding to records requests, barring them from initiating declaratory‐relief actions in state court. By reinforcing statutory text and legislative objectives—timely public‐records access and defined administrative remedies—the Court has set a firm precedent that will shape agency conduct and judicial review in future Nevada public‐records disputes.