Opinion
No. 74001
09-07-2018
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARK B. BAILUS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND DAVID MICHAEL FROSTICK, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order compelling production of a Critical Incident Review Team (CIRT) report.
Having considered the parties' arguments, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 853 (1991). In particular, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in determining that the CIRT report contained Brady material, see State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 198, 275 P.3d 91, 95-96 (2012) (reviewing de novo a district court's determination regarding a Brady claim), and petitioner conceded at oral argument that it would be required to produce the CIRT report if it contained Brady material. Accordingly, we
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
We note that the district court ordered production of a redacted copy of the CIRT report.
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Douglas /s/_________, J.
Cherry /s/_________, J.
Pickering /s/_________, J.
Parraguirre /s/_________, J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Hardesty /s/_________, J.
Stiglich cc: Hon. Mark B. Bailus, District Judge
Charlotte M. Matanane Bible
Marquis Aurbach Coffing
Liesl K. Freedman
Attorney General/Carson City
Gregory & Waldo, LLC
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk