Court access
Three years ago, the Nevada Supreme Court took the important step of sharply limiting the power of Silver State judges to seal court records, particularly in civil cases.
It was long overdue. If the public is to have any confidence in the judiciary, the default setting must be that court records be open, lest some extraordinary circumstances.
In keeping with that premise, three members of the state high court now seek to amend or repeal a rule on the books in the Clark County courts that permits parties in civil cases to submit trial briefs to the court that remain secret — even from opposing counsel — until the end of the proceedings. The rule, say Chief Justice Michael Douglas and Justices Kristina Pickering and James Hardesty, may be inconsistent with the “presumptive right of public and press access to court proceedings.”
Typically, any communication with a judge must be done via a written motion, which is filed with the court and available for the other parties and the public to examine. But this rule — known as EDCR 7.27 and unique in Nevada to Clark County — allows either side of a case to communicate with the judge without the other’s knowledge, blowing a hole in the rules against “ex parte” communication.
Prohibitions on ex parte communication help ensure cases are decided solely on the evidence and arguments presented in court and the applicable law. They are vital to the concept of judicial impartiality.
There are some limited exceptions in which ex parte communication may be allowed, but the Clark County rule permitting attorneys to submit confidential trial briefs is far too broad. The high court justices are on the right track here. The Nevada Supreme Court should toss EDCR 7.27.