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 J04/27/2018 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.