Seaman Documentsd

A-17-753515-C DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
Negligence - Auto COURT MINUTES September 23, 2024

A-17-753515-C John Seaman, Plaintiff(s) Department 24
vs.
City of Las Vegas, Defendant(s)
September 23, 2024 12:37 PM Minute Order
HEARD BY: Ballou, Erika COURTROOM: Chambers
COURT CLERK: Guy, Charmaine
RECORDER:
REPORTER:
PARTIES PRESENT:
JOURNAL ENTRIES
The Court having considered all papers and pleadings and having determined that no hearing
is necessary, hereby VACATES the hearing on Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction set for
September 24, 2024. This Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED.
This matter arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 10, 2015, in Las Vegas,
Nevada, in which Plaintiffs John and Victoria Seaman's vehicle crashed into an unmarked
"cutout" section of roadway prepared as part of a construction zone by Defendants, resulting in
injuries and damages.
This matter resolved amongst the parties and, between August and September 2019, all terms
of resolution were memorialized in a confidential agreement (the Agreement). As a result of
the resolution reached by the parties, Plaintiff dismissed her claim against all defendants,
Defendant City of Las Vegas (hereinafter City), and presumed this matter was concluded. The
City has maintained a copy of the settlement agreement in its records.
On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff's counsel received an e-mail from City Attorney, Jeff Dorocak, Esq.,
indicating that he would be producing a copy of documents related to the settlement of this
matter, including the Agreement, in response to a public record request.
Plaintiff hereby seeks a preliminary injunction against the City and its officers, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert of participation with them,
enjoining the City from disclosing or otherwise making public the existence or terms of
documents related to any confidential settlement agreements previously reached in this
matter.
The City asserts that it is not under an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the subject
settlement agreement, either by the terms of the agreement itself or by statute. Thus, the City
is required to comply with the public records request at issue pursuant to the Nevada Public
Records Act codified in NRS 239. (hereinafter NPRA ).
As the Nevada Supreme Court has explained, injunctions are issued to protect plaintiffs from
irreparable injury and to preserve the court s power to render a meaningful decision after a trial
on the merits. See Ottenheimer v. Real Estate Division, 91 Nev. 338, 535 P.2d 1284 (1975).
The decision whether to grant a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion of the
district court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion
Printed Date: 9/24/2024 Page 1 of 3 Minutes Date: September 23, 2024
Prepared by: Charmaine Guy
A-17-753515-C
Number One Rent-A-Car v. Ramada Inns, 94 Nev. 779, 781, 587 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1978).
NRS 33.010 states:
An injunction may be granted in the following cases:
1. When it shall appear by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and
such relief or any part thereof consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act
complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.
2. When it shall appear by the complaint or affidavit that the commission or continuance of
some act, during the litigation, would produce great or irreparable injury to the plaintiff.
Injunctive relief is extraordinary relief, and the irreparable harm must be articulated in specific
terms by the issuing order or be sufficiently apparent elsewhere in the record. Dep't of
Conservation & Nat. Res., Div. of Water Res. v. Foley, 121 Nev. 77, 80 (2005).
NRCP 65(a) allows a court to issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse
party. Grant of a preliminary injunction is proper where the moving party can demonstrate that
it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and that, absent a preliminary
injunction, it will suffer irreparable harm for which compensatory damages would not suffice.
Excellence Cmty. Mgmt. v. Gilmore, 131 Nev. 347, 350-51 (2015).
A plaintiff must demonstrate that actual harm is likely in order to meet the standard for a TRO
and preliminary injunction. Berryman v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, 82 Nev. 277
(1966). There must be a reasonable probability and not just a possibility of an injury. Dixon v.
Thatcher, 103 Nev. 414, 415 (1987). Plaintiff provides no actual proof that she would suffer
irreparable harm if the Agreement is released. Plaintiff merely speculates that release of the
Agreement will cause others to view her in a negative light. However, speculation about
possible future harm is insufficient to establish an irreparable injury. Niken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
418, 435 (2009)(possibility of irreparable injury is insufficient); Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v.
Florida Entertainment, Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 2013)( Those seeking injunctive
relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. ). The fact
that Plaintiff is a current member of the City Council and/or mayoral candidate is irrelevant.
Rather, there is legitimate public interest in government action involving elected officials. Las
Vegas Rev.-J., Inc. v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, 526 P.3d 724, 739
(2023).
Further, it is unlikely Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of the matter. The confidentiality
paragraph in the Agreement provides that in exchange for consideration, the Releasors would
keep the Agreement confidential except for any exceptions imposed by (i) a law or regulation;
(ii) a judicial order; or (iii) an evidentiary rule. Where a contract is clear on its face, it will be
construed from the written language and enforced as written. Canfora v. Coast Hotels and
Casinos, 121 Nev. 771, 776 (2005). There is no language in the confidentiality section
requiring confidentiality on the part of the Defendant Releasees, which includes the City. Thus,
this provision only required confidentiality from the Releasors or Plaintiffs, and not the
Defendants.
Moreover, the confidentiality provision recognized certain exceptions to the confidentiality

requirement, including a law or regulation. The City is a government entity that is subject to
the Nevada Public Records Act codified in NRS 239. Here, the law mandates disclosure by the
City because the Agreement is a public record as a matter of law. The Nevada Supreme
Court has consistently held that there is a presumption in favor of disclosure of public records
and that any limitations to disclosure must be construed narrowly. Las Vegas Rev.-J., Inc.,
supra, 526 P.3d at 731; Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 880, 266 P.3d 623,
628 (2011). Indeed, the purpose of the NPRA is to promote government transparency and
A-17-753515-C
accountability by facilitating public access to information regarding government activities. Pub.
Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nevada v. Nevada Pol'y Rsch. Inst., Inc., 134 Nev. 669, 671 (2018).
Any exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access to public
books and records by members of the public must be construed narrowly. Clark County Office
of the Coroner/Medical Examiner v. Las Vegas Review Journal, 136 Nev. 44, 50, 458 P.3d
1048, 1054 (2020); NRS 239.001.
Additionally, NRS 41.0375 clearly provides that agreements to settle claims brought against a
government entity are public records as a matter of law. There is no applicable case or statute
providing that a record involving a settlement is only public when it is related to a disbursement
of funds.
Here, Plaintiff brought this suit alleging negligence against the City pursuant to the waiver of
immunity in NRS 41.031. Thus, as set forth in NRS 41.0375, the Settlement Agreement in this
matter is a public record as a matter of law.
Under Nevada law, there are two ways a government entity may be shielded from its
obligations to release a public record. The first is if the record is deemed confidential by law.
NRS 239.010; Clark County School District v. Las Vegas Review Journal, 134 Nev. 700, 703,
429 P.3d 313, 317 (2018). The second way a public record may be withheld must be based on
a broad balancing of the interests involved, and the state entity bears the burden to prove that
its interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public s interest in access. Id., 134 Nev. at
703, quoting Reno Newspapers v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 880, 266 P.3d 623, 628 (2011).
The Settlement Agreement has not been deemed confidential by law. However, the balancing
of interests may warrant some minor redactions to the Agreement. The NPRA allows for, and
indeed, favors redactions over the wholesale withholding of public records. Las Vegas Rev.-J.,
Inc., supra, 526 P.3d at 734; NRS 239.010(3) (prohibiting withholding of public records where
redaction, deletion, concealment, or separation of any confidential information in the public
records remains possible). Several non -governmental co-defendants may have an interest in
keeping the amounts they paid confidential. Thus, the Court agrees with the City s argument,
that the total settlement amounts and the amounts paid by the co-defendants shall be
redacted to balance any privacy concerns of the co-defendants, while still providing public
access to the public record. The Court finds that the disclosure of the Settlement Agreement
is mandated in this case with the total settlement amounts and the amounts paid by the co-
defendants redacted.
Due to the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs Petition for Preliminary Injunction is hereby
DENIED. The City is to comply with the public records request with the total settlement
amounts and the amounts paid by the co-defendants redacted.
The City s counsel is directed to prepare a proposed order and to circulate it to the Plaintiff s
Counsel for approval as to form and content before promptly submitting it to chambers at
DC24Inbox@clarkcountycourts.us for signature.
CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Charmaine
Guy to all registered parties through Odyssey File & Serve. /cg 09/23/2024
CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Charmaine
Guy to all registered parties through Odyssey File & Serve. /cg 09/23/2024


Seaman Documentsd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seaman Documentsd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seaman Documentsd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A-17-753515-C DISTRICT COURT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Negligence - Auto COURT MINUTES September 23, 2024

NRS 33.010 states:

An injunction may be granted in the following cases:

Moreover, the confidentiality provision recognized certain exceptions to the confidentiality

Printed Date: 9/24/2024 Page 3 of 3 Minutes Date: September 23, 2024

You might also like