04/27/2018 08:48 FAX 001/003
1004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE No. 75518
DEPARTMENT,
Appellant/Crose Respondent,
Las VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL,
Respondent/Cross-Appellant, ’ FILED
and
AMERICAN BROADCASTING APR 27 2018
COMPANIES, INC,; THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS; CABLE NEWS NETWORK,
INC.; CHESAPEAKE MEDIA I, LLC, ™.
D/B/A KSNV-TV; LOS ANGELES
TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; THE
NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY;
SCRIPPS BROADCASTING HOLDINGS
LLC D/B/A KTNV-TV; AND WP
COMPANY LLC D/B/A THE
WASHINGTON POST, i
pondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
Appellant has filed an emergency motion seeking to stay,
pending appeal, enforcement of the district court’s March 2 and March 9,
2018, orders that granted public records applications, requiring appellant
to make certain public record information available to respondents. and
that ruled on allowable fees. Respondents have opposed the requested stay.
In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, this
court considers the following factors: (1) whether the object of the appeal
will be defeated if the stay is not granted, (2) whether appellant
will suffer irreparable or serious injury if the stay is denied, (3) whether
respondents will suffer irreparable or serious injury if the’ stay
is granted, and (4) whether appellant is likely to prevail on the
13 J04/27/2018 08:47 FAX 002/003
merits in an appeal, NRAP 8(c). Having considered the motion, opposition,
and supporting documents in light of the NRAP 8(c) factors, we are not
convinced that a stay is warranted at this time. Accordingly, we deny the
motion for a stay,
It is so ORDERED.
0.3.
Douglas
Quon ees _ Atay
Parraguirre Stiglich
GIBBONS, J., with whom, PICKERING, J., agrees, dissenting:
In their opposition, respondents raised a number of arguments
against issuance of a stay. We would direct an expedited reply addressing
those arguments before ruling on the motion, NRAP 27(a)(4), As no reply
is before this court, we dissent from this order denying the motion for stay.