0RD Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3811 Eunice M. Beattie, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10382 SGRO ROGER 720 South Seventh Street, 3rd Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 384-9800 Facsimile: (702) 6654120 ebea?iea?sgroandroger.com David Roger, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 2781 LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 9330 West Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Telephone: (702) 384?8692 Facsimile: (702) 384?7989 droger@lvppa.com Attorneys for Plainti? EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA VERONICA HARTFIELD, a Nevada resident, and the ESTATE OF CHARLESTON HARTFIELD, Plaintiffs vs. OFFICE OF THE CLARK COUNTY CORONER, an agency of the State of Nevada; LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL, a Nevada Corporation; and The ASSOCIATED PRESS, a New York Corporation; DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 10; and ROE DEF ENDANTS 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No.: Dept. No. II ORDER ON COUNTER-MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ~and- OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERIMOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Page 1 of 1 ?Jam February 9, 2018, at 9:00 AM, Plaintiff appeared by and through counsel, Anthony P. Sgro, Esq., of Sgro Roger, and Defendants appeared by and through counsel, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., of McLetchie Shell LLC, before this Court, on Defendants? Counter- motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order; Defendants? Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order/Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and Plaintiffs? Opposition to Defendants? Counter-motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order and Reply to Defendants? Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order/Motion for Preliminary Injunction. After entertaining oral argument on the same, the District Court makes the following ?ndings: THE COURT FINDS that the Katz case is clear that courts have authority to restrict media?s reporting and media?s access to records provided the court makes ?ndings that these documents implicate a clear privacy interest and these documents would cause additional anguish; moreover, the Court ?nds compelling the language cited in Plaintiffs? Opposition, to wit: Family members of decedents have a privacy right in records regarding their deceased relatives. Katz v. National Archives Records Admin, 862 F.Supp. 476 (D.D.C. 1994). In Katz, the court held: [T]he Kennedy family has a clear privacy interest in preventing the disclosure of both the x-rays and the optical photographs taken during President Kennedy?s autopsy. . .However, there can be no mistaking that the Kennedy family has been traumatized by the prior publication of the unauthorized records and that further release of the autopsy materials will cause additional Court ?nds that allowing access to the autopsy photographs would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the Kennedy family?s privacy. Katz, 862 F.Supp. at 485-86. Page 2 of 2 LWN NiallTHE COURT FURTHER FINDS compelling, the Johnson case, cited by Defen which acknowledges that under certain circumstances, a gag order may be appr gn and a balancing test is necessary. See Johanson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ofStaie 0f Nev. ex. Rel. Cry. OfCZark, 124 Nev. 245, 251, 182 P.2d 94, 98 (Nev. 2008). THE COURT FURTHER the anguish suffered by Plaintiffs by having the autopsy report of Mr. Hartfleld disseminated and/or published is signi?cant, and that the invasion of Plaintiffs? privacy right, which is a fundamental right, constitutes serious and irreparable harm; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the anguish being suffered by Plaintiffs supports the view that there is a privacy interest, which is a ?indamental, protected interest of a very serious nature, that the Court must consider; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the issue before the Court is whether the Court can issue a so called ?gag order? preventing the press from reporting on the information in the redacted Hartfleld report or even continuing to hold the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hartfleld; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that in resolving this issue, the Court is mindful of . the competing fundamental rights-a fundamental right to privacy and a fundamental right I under the ?rst amendment to speech. In resolving these two fundamental rights, the Court must engage in a balancing approach. THE COURT FURTHER FINDS compelling the language in Johanson, cited by Defendants, that states: We further conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it issued an overly broad gag order sua sponte, without giving notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, without making any factual ?ndings with respect to the need for such an order in light of any clear and present danger or threat of serious and imminent harm to a protected interest, and without examining the existence of any alternative means by which to accomplish this purpose. Page 3 of 3 Johahson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ofNev. ex. Rel. Cry. of Clark, 124 Nev. 245, 253, 182 P.2d 94, 99 (Nev. 2008). THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Johanson contemplates a balancing approach in determining whether the press? access to the redacted Hartfield report may be restrained; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that it agrees with the approach taken by the Eighth Circuit in Certain Interested Individuals, John Does Who are Employees ochDormell Douglas Corp. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co, 895 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1990), where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, ?We agree with the district court that what is required is a careful balancing of the public's interest in access against the individual's privacy interests, and we commend the district court for its efforts to protect and accommodate the con?icting interests in access and privacy.? Certain Interested Individuals, John Does Who are Employees of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co. 895 F.2d 460, 464 (8th Cir. 1990); THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that, based on the cited cases, a balancing test is required in this case; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the matter before the Court is different from the case brought in A-17-764842-W, Department XVI, prior to this action because this Court is dealing with a personal privacy interest, which is a fundamental right, instead of government interests; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that redacting the Hart?eld autopsy report is not suf?cient to guard against the fundamental right to privacy being asserted in this action; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants have failed to assert any legitimate basis for why the public would need to have access to the redacted Hart?eld autopsy report; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that there is a strong public policy that individuals are entitled to protection from intrusion into their medical records and medical history that is supported in part by the Coroner?s counsel who came forward and explained the principles of the Coroner?s of?ce in exercising some degree of control over the dissemination of the autopsy records; Page 4 of 4 THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Court must also be sensitive to the grief that the victims and the victim?s family are suffering from; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld has any signi?cant relationship to the manner in which the government operates to warrant dissemination and/or publication; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld has any signi?cant relationship to the need to keep the government accountable to warrant dissemination andfor publication; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld has any signi?cant relationship to the need for the government to be transparent to determine whether governmental of?cials are acting responsibility or with ef?ciency, to warrant dissemination and/or publication; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants have failed to demonstrate, in this case, irreparable harm or immediate or recognizable harm to Defendants if the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld remains protected; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that this case is substantively different from the case heard in Department as such, this Court ?nds that releasing Mr. Hart?eld?s redacted autopsy report would be a dissemination of highly intimate and utterly invasive information of a person?s life and this is in connection with a horri?c event; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the disclosure of Mr. Hart?eld?s redacted autopsy report is not one involving a legitimate public concern; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that there is no less restrictive order than this Court?s order prohibiting the further dissemination or disclosure of Mr. Hart?eld?s redacted [?55 I THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that there is ten the Court could ta autopsy report; W. other than prohibiting the complete disclosure of the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld; Page 5 of 5 THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the only autopsy report at issue in this case is Mr. Hart?eld?s autOpsy report; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS unpersuasive Defendants? argument that it does not ?know? which autopsy report to return, as Defendants may either: 1) return all autopsy reports to be destroyed by the Coroner, and request the Coroner to re-send a new set of reports without Mr. Hartfreld?s report contained therein; or 2) a representative from the Coroner?s of?ce can review the records that the Las Vegas Review Journal and/or Associated Press has and that record can be destroyed; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS unpersuasive Defendants? argument that it is impossible to retrieve the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld from the reporters that it has disseminated the report to, as any reporter who has received the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld is an employee of the Las Vegas Review Journal and/or Associated Press; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that it is limiting its ruling to the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld, and its order does not contemplate any other individual?s autopsy reports or records; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the press can report on information gleaned separate and apart from information gleaned from Mr. Hart?eld?s redacted autopsy report; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that it is not dealing with the issue of what entities the Coroner?s of?ce released the autopsy report to, concerning Mr. Hartfield; the Court only has jurisdiction over the Las Vegas Review Journal and the Associated Press regarding the issues in the case at bar. As such, the Court can only determine whether the arguments the Las Vegas Review Journal and/or the Associated Press has made in support of continued possession, dissemination and/or publication of the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld warrants continued possession, dissemination, and/or publication of the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hartfield and this Court has concluded that Defendants have failed to meet that burden; Based on the ?ndings of fact, the Court orders as follows: Page 6 of 6 HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants? Counter-motion and Opposition is denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff?s request for injunctive relief as to the autopsy report of Charleston Hart?eld is granted, as: 1) Plaintiffs enjoy a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; 2) Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief is not granted; 3) the balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs? favor; and 4) an injunction is in the public interest; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Las Vegas Review Journal and the Associated Press are hereby restrained and barred from; disclosing, disseminating, publishing, 01' sharing the redacted autopsy report of Mr. Hart?eld, or any information of Mr. Hart?eld therein; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Las Vegas Review Jo Associated Md .19 1 Press must destroy any and all autopsy records relating to the October 1 event as it pertains to a?ian/? 205 Vega} EQWEW {gazing} ?Ya/{6345676 "35 0f VOA in {gram cjl?vif?w/ 429 ?ff?ua?i/ ?05357 .. La} ?gs/MW w/?cx. r?mfg/?' I?ve/Wk {a if; f, Nina/twine of 50?? - 52/0- 19), gm! . .. f0 Qil/ilofi/Q/ 00/ jab/f?? 01%? a )9 {10 MS (045 hi ?a Ef?e/?67615 {a Mr. Hart?eld; a] 49fo {11260 . i 4942 . 7a: ??yf/ar?/j 11g ?/17?va Moor/x: i I Page 7 of 7 FURTHER ORDERED that the Coroner?s of?ce must send letters to any and all entities, media outlets, and other individuals, to whom Mr. Hart?eld?s redacted autopsy records were produced or disseminated re?ecting this Court?s order, except to the extent that the redacted Hart?eld autopsy report may be disseminated to the Plaintiff in this case. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE \lh DATED this l5 day ofFebruary,2018. Submitted by: m/s/ Eunice M. Beattie, Esq.? Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3811 Eunice M. Beattie, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10382 SGRO ROGER 720 South Seventh Street, 3rd Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 384-9800 Facsimile: (702) 665-4120 tsgro@sgroandroger.com eheattie@sgr0androger.corn David Roger, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 2781 LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION 9330 West Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Telephone: (702) 384?8692 Facsimile: (702) 384-7989 droger@lvppa.com Attorneys for Plainti?fs Page 8 of 8 0?1