Petitioner Robert Conrad, who operates the news website ThisIsReno.com, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the City of Reno regarding numerous public records requests. The petition alleges that the City has improperly withheld, redacted, and delayed the disclosure of requested records on various police matters. It also claims the City has improperly closed some requests and demanded payment for records not listed in its fee schedule. The petition seeks an order requiring the City to comply with the Nevada Public Records Act and provide timely access to public records.

1. LUKE A. BUSBY, ESQ.
SBN 10319
316 California Ave.
Reno, Nevada 89509
775-453-0112
luke@lukeandrewbusbyltd.com
Attorney for the Petitioner
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
* * *
ROBERT A. CONRAD, an individual doing
business as THISISRENO.COM,
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF RENO, a political subdivision of the
State of Nevada,and JOHN DOES I through X,
inclusive;
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
CASE NO:
DEPT NO:
Exempt from Arbitration
NAR 3(A) - judicial review,
declaratory relief
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(ENTITLED TO PRIORITY PER NRS 239.011)
COMES NOW, Petitioner ROBERT A. CONRAD, and individual doing business
as THISISRENO.COM (“Petitioner”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and
hereby bring this Petition for Writ of Mandamus for declaratory and injunctive relief
and seeking an order requiring the City of Reno and Reno Police Department
(“Respondent”) to provide Petitioner with timely access to public records. Petitioner
also requests an award for all fees and costs associated with efforts to obtain
1
F I L E D
Electronically
CV22-01263
2022-08-05 01:40:06 PM
Alicia L. Lerud
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 9190803 : yviloria

2. withheld and mishandled public records provided for by NRS 239.011(2). Further,
Petitioner respectfully asks that this matter be expedited pursuant to NRS
239.011(2).
NATURE OF ACTION
Petitioner brings this application for relief pursuant to NRS 239.011, commonly
known as the Nevada Public Records Act (“NPRA”). See also, Reno Newspapers,
Inc. v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 884 n.4, 266 P.3d 623. 630 n.4 (2011).
A writ of mandamus is the appropriate procedural remedy to compel
compliance with the NPRA .Id.; see also, DR Partners v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of
Clark Cty. 116 Nev. 616, 621 6 P.3d 465, 468 (2000) (citing, Donrey of Nev. v.
Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144 (1990)) (hereinafter “Donrey”)).
Petitioner is entitled to an expedited hearing on this matter pursuant to NRS
239.011(2), which mandates that “[t]he court shall give this matter priority over other
civil matters to which priority is not given by other statutes.”
PARTIES
Petitioner, Dr. Robert Conrad is a journalist and the publisher, editor and owner
of ThisIsReno.com (“TIR”), a community-focused online news source for the greater
Reno, Nevada, area.
At all relevant times herein, Petitioner is and has been doing business in Reno,
Washoe County, Nevada as TIR / Conrad Communications, LLC.
Respondent, the CITY OF RENO is a government subdivision doing business
herein in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada as well as surrounding areas.
Pursuant to NRS 239.005(5) Respondent is a “government entity” under the
NPRA and thus is subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements set for in NRS
239.010 of the NPRA.
///
2

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Nevada Constitution
Article VI, 6; NRS 34.160.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 239.011, as the court of Washoe
County, is the Court of the County where all relevant public records sought are held.
Venue is proper in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada pursuant to
NRS 239.011. All parties and all relevant actions to this matter were and are in
Washoe County, Nevada.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to NRS 239.011 because the requested
public records are located in Washoe County.
FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
The Nevada Public Records Act (“NPRA”) was enacted “to foster democratic
principles by providing members of the public with prompt access to inspect, copy
or receive a copy of public books and records to the extent permitted by law.” See,
NRS 239.001. The NPRA “must be construed liberally to carry out this important
purpose,” and “[a]ny exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or
restricts access … must be construed narrowly.” Id.
During the course of normal reporting activities, Petitioner files regular public
records requests with various local and state agencies.
Petitioner has filed numerous public records requests with the City of Reno.
The City of Reno mandates all public records requests for city departments be filed
through the Reno City Clerk’s online portal called GovQA. The Reno Police
Department mandates use of the same online platform, also through the City Clerk’s
office.
Respondent improperly redacted information from the records in one request
for no verifiable reason. Respondent improperly redacted information from another
3

4. set of records, only to reverse course after being challenged. The redacted request
remains unaddressed despite reversing course on one request but not the other.
Respondent untimely delayed production of time-sensitive public records.
Respondent cites voluminous records requests as a reason to delay records
production; however, despite experiencing record revenues in recent years, as well
as massive injections of federal dollars, and a number of new positions being hired
at the City of Reno, Respondent has failed to hire enough adequate staffing to aid
with producing public records. In turn, it tells public records requesters they must
suffer inordinately long delays for their records by citing staffing shortages as the
rationale.
Respondent failed to respond to requests for updates to requests for
previously denied requests after claiming the requests could be denied because
they involved open investigations.
Respondent repeatedly denies public records requests with terse, boilerplate
citations that fail to adequately detail the legal authority for such denials.
Respondent serially closes records requests, citing the terse, boilerplate
language noted above, without ever producing the records. This practice leaves
requesters to either assume the records will never be provided or forces the
requester to make new requests as will be demonstrated herein.
Respondent closes records requests if requesters cannot comply with
Respondent’s obtuse responses that serve as excuses to avoid producing public
records.
Respondent attempts to extract payment for public records for certain records
not listed in its fee schedule pursuant to NRS 239.053.
///
///
///
4

5. REQUEST NO. 1
P068818-110321 & P073600-013122
On November 3, 2021, Petitioner requested bodycam footage of three Reno
Police officers for an incident that occurred October 21, 2021. Exhibit 1.
Respondent failed to timely respond within five business days pursuant to NRS
239.0107(5). The request was denied Nov. 16, 2021 citing the matter being “under
investigation.” Petitioner requested updates on December 1, 2021 and January 20,
2022. Respondent marked the request as “completed” but then created a new
request (P073600-013122) on January 31, 2022 after Petitioner again asked for the
same bodycam footage. That same day Respondent denied the request citing
Donrey. See Exhibit 2. On March 31, 2022, Petitioner requested an update, and on
April 7, 2022, Respondent said the case was still open. No records or responses
have been received since, and Respondent has marked the records request as
“completed.”
REQUEST NO. 2:
P062891-072021, P065993-091521 & P067402-101121
On July 20, 2021 Petitioner requested bodycam footage of a shooting incident
in downtown Reno that occurred July 17, 2021. Respondent closed the request,
citing an open investigation: “This is an active/open case and cannot be released
until the investigation is closed through the Reno Police Department & the Courts.”
See Exhibit 3. This response is deficient as to how the release of the records would
materially affect an investigation, especially in light of the fact that Defendant openly
chooses to release body cam footage of officer-involved shootings well prior to any
resolutions on a number of cases. Petitioner asked for an update on the case on
August 19, 2021. Respondent on August 23, 2021 said the original request was
closed and Petitioner had to file a new one. Petitioner filed the new request
(P065993-091521) September 15, 2021, and Respondent again denied the request
5

6. five days later citing Donrey. Petitioner again requested an update on October 5,
2021, to which Respondent created on October 11, 2021 a new, and now third,
public records request (P067402-101121) on behalf of petitioner. It denied the
request the same day, citing Donrey. On March 31, 2022, Petitioner requested an
update. Respondent, on April 7, 2022, the City responded and said, “This case is
still active/open at this time.” More than a year after the initial request, Respondent
has failed to produce the records with no verifiable reason provided to Petitioner.
Respondent has marked the request “completed.” Id.
REQUEST NO. 3
P065994-091521 & P077149-040622
On September 15, 2021, Petitioner requested bodycam footage of the arrest
of a Washoe County Sheriff Office’s sergeant, Levi Smith, who had been arrested by
RPD on charges of resisting arrest, domestic battery, and being an intoxicated
pedestrian on a roadway. Exhibit 4. On September 20, 2021, Respondent denied the
request by saying, “WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE THIS REPORT DUE TO THE
FOLLOWING: Under Investigation (Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw 106 Nev. 630,.
798 P.2d 144 (1990)” [sic]. On October 5, 2021, an update to the request was
requested by Petitioner. The same day, Respondent provided the same response as
above. On March 31, 2022, Petitioner requested an update on the request;
Respondent did not respond but instead created a new request (P077149-040622)
on Petitioner’s behalf on April 6, 2022. On April 7, 2022, Respondent wrote
Petitioner and said, “due to CRITICAL STAFFING, we anticipate that any records
identified will be made available to you by 9/30/22.” [Emphasis in original response.]
REQUEST NO. 4
G078528-042822
On April 28, 2022, Petitioner requested emails to and from City of Reno
employees to representatives of Bird Scooters, a franchisee of the City. Exhibit 5.
6

7. The next day, Respondent said it could only provide requested information if
Petitioner supplied “a list of keywords, a date range, and whose emails you wish us
to search…” Id. Respondent also threatened to close the records request unless
Petitioner provided the information which only Respondent, as the steward of these
records, would be privy to. The Respondent, not the Petitioner, is in the position to
determine whom on its staff would be communicating with Bird representatives.
Petitioner has no knowledge with whom at Bird the City communicates, on what
specific topics or keywords, and from which email addresses Bird representatives
may or may not use. Such information, in fact, would be generated within the
records requested had the Respondent provided them. Respondent’s response
places the Petitioner in a position to wildly guess what records the City may
possess, which would nearly negate the intent of the request in the first place. Upon
communicating the absurdity of Respondent’s response, Respondent then said on
May 13, 2022, it actually could provide a log of emails in accordance with the
original request. The log was provided on May 19, 2022. Respondent then stated it
would take more than another month – June 30, 2022 – to provide the emails.
Respondent, on June 30, 2022, then extended that deadline by another two months.
Respondent’s message to Petitioner on June 30 noted, “Staff has begun to review
the selected email records for proprietary and confidential information. The
anticipated date in which your records will be available is now 6/30/2022.” Id. On
that date, Respondent changed its mind and contradicted its previous claim by
writing, “Our office has begun researching and identifying non-exempt records
responsive to your request. Consequently, due to staffing constraints and additional
time needed for review, we anticipate that any records identified will be made
available to you by 8/30/2022.” [Emphases in original.] Id.
///
///
7

8. REQUEST No. 5
G078529-042822
On April 28, 2022, Petitioner requested from Respondent copies of all
complaints the City of Reno has received about Bird Scooters. Exhibit 6.
Respondent on May 1, 2022 said such records could only be provided if Petitioner
had physical addresses at which such complaints could arise: “Unfortunately, our
software for Code Enforcement does not classify code enforcement complaints
based on keywords such as ‘bird scooters’. In order to process your request, we
would need a list of specific property addresses or parcels within the City of Reno
limits.” Respondent threatened to close Petitioner’s request in 10 business days if
he could not provide that information. Petitioner responded: “How on earth can I
provide property address or parcels when I would have no idea where to even start.
Certainly the city has a way to track complaints of Bird scooters, no?” Respondent’s
May 5, 2022 reply then claimed: “Our office has reviewed its files and has
determined there are no CODE ENFORCEMENT documents responsive to your
request. All calls/complaints are filed through Reno Direct, the City of Reno's call
center. They will be able to provide you with the information you are requesting, if
any complaints have been received.” Id. It should be noted that Respondent
oversees Reno Direct and would have access to those records, and citizens must
use this very same system to get public records from Reno Direct as the one in use
for this correspondence, GovQA. That same day, strangely, Respondent provided
the records. The complainant's name was redacted from the records. Respondent
noted, “Please note that portions of your request have been redacted for the
following reasons: Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw ((106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144
(1990))” [sic]. [Emphasis in original text.] Petitioner asked Respondent: “What in
Bradshaw gives the City the ability to redact this complaint?” Respondent did not
reply. Id.
8

9. REQUEST No. 6
G078532-042822
On April 28, 2022, Petitioner made a request for “copies of all complaints
regarding trivia events at local businesses.” Exhibit 7. Respondents’ reply on May 1,
2022 was the same as the above: “Unfortunately, Code Enforcement complaints are
classified based on specific property addresses or parcels. Therefore, in order for
code enforcement to process your request, we would need a list of specific property
addresses or parcels.” Id. On May 4, 2022, however, Respondent produced the
records, also with the complainant names redacted, similar to Request 5 above. On
May 10, 2022 Petitioner requested the legal authority in Bradshaw that allows the
city to redact complainant names. Respondent never replied to the inquiry; instead,
it provided unredacted records with no explanation. Petitioner then asked: “By
providing the unredacted report, is the City now reneging on citing Bradshaw for the
redaction of complainant names? Is this across the board or just on this single
request? Thank you.” Id. Respondent did not reply.
REQUEST No. 7
P083982-071822
On July 18, 2022, Petitioner made another request to the city of Reno for
police body cam footage. Exhibit 8. Respondent replied on July 25, 2022 by
sending an invoice for $108 and stating that, unless Petitioner pays the invoice,
Respondent would close his public records request. Id. No basis is provided for the
amount sought in the response to the request.
There is no indication in the City’s response that the fee sought reflects the
actual cost to the City of Reno to provide the copy of the public record. In addition,
RPD’s public records fee schedule lists no charges for body cam footage. Exhibit 9.
///
9

10. REQUEST No. 8
G078615-043022
On April 30, 2022, Petitioner made a request to the city of Reno for written
correspondence from a local attorney to city officials. See Exhibit 10. Respondent
replied on May 9, 2022, outside of the statutorily required five-business-day
deadline to either provide the records or respond with an estimated timeline to
provide the records. On the sixth business day after the request, Respondent asked
for a clarification, which was really a request to narrow the request only by
keywords. The next day, Petitioner responded, “I’m not looking for a search term. I
would like all correspondence from and to him from city personnel.” Id. Respondent
did not reply. Petitioner requested an update on May 19, 2022. On May 24, 2022,
Respondent produced a redacted log of emails. On May 27, Petitioner again
requested all emails be provided. Despite having the requested records on hand,
Respondent then said, on June 7, “Staff has begun to review the selected records.
The anticipated date in which your records will be available is now August 1st,
2022.” [Emphasis in original correspondence.] Id. However, on July 28, 2022,
Respondent again responded and extended its deadline by yet another month.
Respondent wrote, “Our office has begun researching and identifying non-exempt
records responsive to your request. Consequently, due to a switch in records
systems, an additional one month is needed to manually enter your request into the
new system and property respond. We anticipate you will receive a response by
8/31/2022.” [Emphasis in original text.] Id. It should be noted the response no longer
indicates the records would actually be provided by that date.
The City’s Public Statements Regarding NPRA Requests
On April 3, 2019, the former Reno City Clerk testified before the Senate
Government Affairs Committee at Nevada State Legislature during a hearing on
10

11. Senate Bill 287, a bill that strengthened the provisions in the NPRA, largely in
response to widespread failures of government entities to comply with the NPRA.
Former City Clerk Ashley Turney testified that the City of Reno has seen voluminous
increases in public records requests with no state support to address the increased
workload: “Through the recession, and as it sits now, the City of Reno has no
dedicated staff to respond to public records requests.” See Exhibit 11 [Hearing
Video at 1:38:48].
That same refrain was repeated earlier this year – three years later – by the
new City Clerk:
“We have some notable increases year over year [in public records
requests], yet we don’t have any staffing set … for any department to
actually respond to those public records requests within the NRS
timeline that’s designated. It does take the lion’s share of resources
from my team.”
See Exhibit 12 [Reno City Council Budget Hearing beginning at 1:29].
This discussion was during a set of budget hearings at the City of Reno that
noted the city is experiencing record tax revenue, as well as massive infusions of
federal grant dollars as a result of the pandemic. Id. Numerous new positions were
identified by the City to address deficiencies in various city departments – notably,
however, support for public records was only marginally increased with a handful of
new positions dedicated to assisting only RPD with public records requests and no
added support identified for the Reno City Clerk. Id.
Despite demonstrable trends in increasing public records requests,
Respondent chose to put its resources elsewhere and make members of the public
wait indefinitely for public records. The end result is non-responsiveness of city staff
in addition to extensive delays by Respondent in producing public records, an
activity in defiance of what the Legislature has identified as an “important purpose”
to “foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with prompt
11

12. access to inspect, copy or receive a copy of public books and records.” [Emphasis
added.] See NRS 239.001.
ARGUMENT
The evidence presented herein shows that Respondent’s actions demonstrate:
(1) A willful defiance of the NPRA by refusing for years to hire the necessary
personnel to respond to public records requests; and (2) The deliberate and knowing
refusal to follow the basic requirements of the NPRA.
The NPRA provides that records of governmental entities belong to the public.
NRS 239.010(1) mandates that, unless a record is confidential, “all public books and
records of a governmental entity must be open at all times during office hours to
inspection by any person, and may be fully copied[.]”
All government records are public records and are open to disclosure unless a
statutory provision declares the record confidential, or nondisclosure clearly
outweighs the public’s interest in access. Reno Newspapers v. Gibbons, 127 Nev.
873, 880, 266 P.3d 623, 628 (2011) and Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of Nev. v. Reno
Newspapers, Inc., 129 Nev. 833, 837, 313 P.3d 221, 224 (2013). "Open records are
the rule, and any nondisclosure of records is the exception." Reno Newspapers v.
Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 879 (2011). Where portions of a public record are confidential,
they should simply be redacted, and the remainder of the public record should be
disclosed. Id. at 880.
The government bears the burden of establishing that the interest in
withholding documents outweighs the interest disclosure. Donrey, 106 22 Nev. 630,
798 P.2d 144 (1990). The NPRA is to "be construed liberally" to carry out that
purpose, and any exemption or exception to disclosure is to be "construed
narrowly." NRS 239.001(3). See also Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Haley, 234 P.3d 922,
927 (Nev. 2010).
12

13. In Clark County School District v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. 700,
429 P.3d 313 (2018) (hereinafter “CCSD”), the Nevada Supreme Court adopted a
“burden shifting test to determine the scope of redaction of names of persons
identified in an investigative report with nontrivial privacy claims, and remand for
further proceedings.” In Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Las Vegas Review-Journal,
478 P.3d 383 (Nev. 2020) (hereinafter “LVMPD”), the Court clarified that courts
should apply the test adopted in CCSD, “whenever the government asserts a
nontrivial privacy interest.”
Under NRS 289.830(2), body worn camera footage is a public record.
Respondent has failed to cite any proper legal basis for endless delays in producing
the requested footage. In the case of Request No. 2 described above, Petitioner
originally requested bodycam footage in July of 2021, which Respondent denied,
citing an open investigation, but with no specificity as to how the release of the
footage would potentially jeopardize an open investigation. Furthermore, rather than
put Petitioner at the top of the queue to provide that footage immediately upon
conclusion of the investigation, Respondent simply closed the records requests,
forcing the Petitioner to make repeat pleas for the same records. While Respondent
vaguely cites Donrey as an excuse to indefinitely withhold public records, in
applying the Donrey balancing test, the burden remains squarely on the
governmental entity for such refusals. Respondent makes no such showing, opting
instead for boilerplate Donrey citation and then closing the request leaving the
requester to only guess when an investigation may have closed. No records have
been produced for this request, nor has Respondent made any effort to make them
available more than a year after the request was made, let alone an estimate of
when they might be available as required in statute.
Respondent falls far short of meeting its burden to prove that the requested
records are confidential. Instead, Respondent has only provided the unsupported
13

14. assertion that producing body cam footage cannot be provided to the public due to
an open investigation, without any citation or rationale provided. Further,
Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with the clear terms of the NPRA, requiring
government entities to:
[P]rovide to the person, in writing, notice of the fact that it is unable to
make the public book or record available by that date and the earliest
date and time after which the governmental entity reasonably believes
the public book or record will be available for the person to inspect or
copy or after which a copy of the public book or record will be
available to the person. If the public book or record or the copy of the
public book or record is not available to the person by that date and
time, the governmental entity shall provide to the person, in writing, an
explanation of the reason the public book or record is not available
and a date and time after which the governmental entity
reasonably believes the public book or record will be available for
the person to inspect or copy or after which a copy of the public book
or record will be available to the person.
NRS 239.0107(1)(c)1). [Emphasis added.]
The evidence presented above shows that Respondent fails to notify citizens
requesting records when those records will be produced. It closes requests, and
then inconsistently responds to requests for updates, if at all.
Respondent also charges fees for records in violation of NRS 239.052, with no
indication as to whether the requested fee reflects the actual cost of producing the
record at issue. In Request No. 8, Respondent attempted to charge for body cam
footage even though its fees schedule (Exhibit 9) lists no such charges for body cam
footage as required by the provisions in NRS 239.052(3) to conspicuously post such
fees.
The public's right to know is particularly important here as current issues
involving law enforcement are important community and national issues— in
addition to regular news coverage of local government agencies in an era of
14

15. shrinking newsrooms, growing news deserts, and scant coverage in the Reno
market of many government activities.
Respondent’s de facto policy to impose unreasonable and unlawful delays,
unexplained fees, or outright refusal to produce body cam footage, is unlawful under
the provisions of NRS 239.001 et seq, requiring judicial intervention to compel
compliance with the NPRA.
In a previous suit before this Court in Docket No. CV21-00857 involving the
same parties herein, Judge Drakulich in Department 1 issued an order on February
10, 2022 finding that the City of Reno failed comply with the requirements of the
NPRA by failing to respond within five days as required by statute, and awarded
attorney’s fees to the Petitioner pursuant to NRS 239.011(2). See Exhibit 13. The
Petitioner has appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court other matters subject to
Judge Drakulich’s order, which is pending before the Court in Case No. 84389.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
An actual and immediate controversy has arisen and now exists between
Petitioner and Respondent, which have genuine and opposing interests and which
interests are direct and substantial. Respondent has failed and continues to fail to
comply with provisions of NRS Chapter 239 for the reasons set forth herein.
Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a declaratory judgment as well as such other and
further relief as may be ordered and may follow from the entry of such declaratory
judgment therein.
Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by the Court,
Respondent will continue to deny and delay access to public records in violation of
NRS Chapter 239.
This threat of injury to Petitioner from continuing violations requires temporary,
preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.
15

16. Pursuant to NRS 239.011(2), this Court shall give this matter priority over the
civil matters to which priority is not given by other statutes.
Petitioner has been required to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute
this matter, and as such, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs
incurred herein pursuant to NRS 239.011.
Violations of Nevada’s Public Records Act
NRS 239.0107 provides in pertinent part that:
Not later than the end of the fifth business day after the date on
which the person who has legal custody or control of a public
book or record of a governmental entity receives a written or
oral request from a person to inspect, copy or receive a copy of
the public book or record, a governmental entity shall do one of
the following, as applicable: (a) Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 2, allow the person to inspect or copy the public
book or record or, if the request is for the person to receive a
copy of the public book or record, provide such a copy to the
person.
NRS 239.0107(1)(c) further mandates the respondent agency shall, "[e]xcept
as otherwise provided in paragraph (d), if the governmental entity is unable to make
the public book or record available by the end of the fifth business day after the date
on which the person who has legal custody or control of the public book or record
received the request: (1) Provide to the person, in writing, notice of the fact that it is
unable to make the public book or record available by that date and the earliest
date and time after which the governmental entity reasonably believes the public
book or record will be available for the person to inspect or copy or after which a
copy of the public book or record will be available to the person. If the public book
or record or the copy of the public book or record is not available to the person by
that date and time, the governmental entity shall provide to the person, in writing, an
explanation of the reason the public book or record is not available and a date and
time after which the governmental entity reasonably believes the public book or
16

17. record will be available for the person to inspect or copy or after which a copy of the
public book or record will be available to the person."
As detailed herein, Petitioner made eight public records requests at issue in
this action, and Respondent failed to properly respond to any of them.
Respondent has repeatedly failed to meet the requirements of NRS 239.0107,
by failing to timely respond to public records requests within the statutorily
mandated time frame and denying, either initially or indefinitely, the production of
public records.
Respondent illegally attempted to extract fees from Petitioner in violation of
NRS 239.052(3)(a), which states,
A governmental entity shall prepare and maintain a list of the fees that it
charges at each office in which the governmental entity provides copies
of public records. A governmental entity shall post, in a conspicuous
place at each office in which the governmental entity provides copies of
public records, a legible sign or notice which states: (a) The fee that the
governmental entity charges to provide a copy of a public record…
Respondent has initially denied records – and threatened to close the requests
unless Petitioner provides information he simply cannot provide, information that
would only be in the hands of the Respondent – using obtuse and bizarre rationales.
Respondent has failed to provide proper legal justification for denying requests
that allegedly are under investigation and subsequently closes Petitioner's requests.
Respondent has failed to provide estimations as to when records will be
produced and then closed Petitioner’s requests.
Respondent has fostered excessive delays due to its own self-imposed
staffing shortages.
A writ of mandamus is necessary to compel Respondent's compliance with
the NPRA.
///
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17

18. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court:
1. Order Respondent to produce all records sought by the Petitioner
described above;
2. Issue a declaratory judgment that Respondent has repeatedly violated
NRS Chapter 239 by failing to meet statutorily mandated timelines;
3. Order Respondent to comply with NRS 239.0107(1)(c) and respond to
all records requests that cannot be provided within five business days
with certain deadlines;
4. Order Respondent to keep open records requests it cannot immediately
fill, rather than closing them;
5. Order Respondent to produce records in a timely manner and to refrain
from excessive delays due to its own self-imposed short staffing,
pursuant to NRS 239.0107(1)(c)(2);
6. Mandate Respondent assist requesters of public records to focus the
requests in such a manner as to maximize the likelihood the requester
will be able to inspect, copy or receive a copy of the public book or
record as expeditiously as possible, pursuant to NRS 239.0107(1)(c)(2);
7. Mandate Respondent cease charging fees for public records in violation
of NRS 239.052;
8. Award reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and all other expenses
incurred herein to Petitioner pursuant to NRS 239.011(2);
9. Retain jurisdiction over Respondent until such time as the Court is
satisfied that Respondent has complied with the Petitioner’s records
requests;
10.Impose civil penalties against Respondent pursuant to NRS 239.340 for
its repeated failure to comply with the NPRA; and
11.Order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
18

19. NRS 239B.030(4) AFFIRMATION
Pursuant to NRS 239B.030 the undersigned hereby affirms that this document
does not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED this Aug 4, 2022
By: __/s/_Luke Busby, Esq.______
LUKE A. BUSBY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10319
316 California Ave.
Reno, Nevada 89509
775-453-0112
luke@lukeandrewbusbyltd.com
Attorneys for the Petitioner
19

20. Exhibit List
1. Request No. P068818-110321
2. Request No. P073600-013122
3. Request No. P065993-091521
4. Request No. P065994-091521
5. Request No. G078528-042822
6. Request No. G078529-042822
7. Request No. G078532-042822
8. Request No. P083982-071822
9. RPD Records Request Schedule
10.Request No. G078615-043022
11.Senate Bill 287 Hearing Video -
12. Reno City Council Budget Hearing Video
13. February 10, 2022 Order in CV21-00875
20