Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date


Case Synopsis

In an opinion drafted by Justice Tao, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court properly ordered that three surveillance videos and two related reports created by the petitioner’s insurance company's investigators were subject to discovery and not protected from disclosure as “work product” under NRCP 26(b)(3). The Court concluded that the first two videos and the related report are not protected work product because their production was not directed by the petitioner’s counsel. Moreover, the Court concluded that it could not reach a conclusion as to the ultimate discoverability of the third video and accompanying report. The Court opined that the third video and accompanying report constitute as work product because it was created at the direction of the petitioner’s counsel after the suit was commenced. However, the district court did not analyze whether the material was nonetheless to be discoverable upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship. The district court did not use the appropriate analysis when ordering the disclosure of all the videos and reports at issue. Therefore, the Court grants the petition in part with regards to the first two videos and the related report, but directs for further proceedings on the third video and its accompanying report.