deliberative process privilege in Nevada

2011We then concluded that even if the deliberative process privilege applied to the records at issue, the absence of a particularized evidentiary showing by Clark County “prevented the district court from engaging in the weighing process mandated by Bradshaw.” Id. at 627, 6 P.3d at 472 .

2011On appeal, we first set forth the requirements for showing that the deliberative process privilege applies — namely, that the withheld records be both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” Id. at 623, 6 P.3d at 469 .

2018More specifically, CCSD argues that this court should reverse the district court order under: (a) federal law and federal guidelines; 1 (b) CCSD regulations; (c) the deliberative process privilege; (d) the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC); 2 and (e) the common law balancing test set forth in Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw , 106 Nev. 630 , 635, 798 P.2d 144 , 147 (1990).

2018More specifically, CCSD argues that this court should reverse the district court order under: (a) federal law and federal guidelines; 1 (b) CCSD regulations; (c) the deliberative process privilege; (d) the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC); 2 and (e) the common law balancing test set forth in Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw , 106 Nev. 630 , 635, 798 P.2d 144 , 147 (1990).

2018"To extend the deliberative process privilege to a recommendation as to a particular personnel matter extends it beyond its present form to protect from disclosure what would otherwise be evidence relevant to plaintiff's complaint of discrimination." Id. at 561 (quoting Waters v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. , 216 F.R.D. 153 , 163 (D.D.C. 2003) ).

2018"To extend the deliberative process privilege to a recommendation as to a particular personnel matter extends it beyond its present form to protect from disclosure what would otherwise be evidence relevant to plaintiffs complaint of discrimination." Id. at 561 (quoting Waters v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 216 F.R.D. 153, 163 (D.D.C. 2003)).

2018However, the central purpose of the privilege is "protecting the decision making processes of government agencies." N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U.S. 132 , 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018However, the central purpose of the privilege is "protecting the decision making processes of government agencies." N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U.S. 132 , 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021See id. at 129, 460 P.3d at 958.

2021See id. at 129, 460 P.3d at 958.

2011See Davin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 60 F.3d 1043, 1049 (3d Cir. 1995) (explaining that under the FOIA, before considering whether requested records were correctly determined to be exempt from disclosure, a reviewing court must first examine “ ‘whether the [withholding entity’s] explanation was full and specific enough to afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding.’ ” (quoting McDonnell v. U.S., 4 F.3d 1227 , 1242 (3d Cir. 1993))).

2011See Davin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 60 F.3d 1043, 1049 (3d Cir. 1995) (explaining that under the FOIA, before considering whether requested records were correctly determined to be exempt from disclosure, a reviewing court must first examine “ ‘whether the [withholding entity’s] explanation was full and specific enough to afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding.’ ” (quoting McDonnell v. U.S., 4 F.3d 1227 , 1242 (3d Cir. 1993))).

2000See Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Ct., 813 P.2d 240, 242 (Cal. 1991) (discussing the rationale behind the deliberative process privilege); Rogers v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding that cellular telephone bills of the Burbank City Council and other City employees were subject to the deliberative process privilege).

2000See Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger v. N.L.R.B., 751 F.2d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1985) (inferentially stating that Exemption 5 to the Freedom of Information Act does not protect documents prepared for the government by outside consultants who do not have a formal relationship with the government); County of Madison, N.Y. v. U.S. Dept, of Justice, 641 F.2d 1036 (1st Cir. 1981) (approving principle that interested outside parties are not covered by Exemption 5 to FOIA).