Judge rules against county in battle over cellular records

Kim Smith

Monday, Dec. 4, 2000 | 9:49 a.m.

In a written decision released late Friday, District Judge Mark Denton gave Clark County 30 days to provide a local newspaper the copies of cellular phone records it requested nearly three years ago.

If the county does not do so, Denton said a daily fine of $500 will be imposed until his order is followed.

Denton issued his ruling three days after attorneys for the Las Vegas Review-Journal asked him to hold the county in civil and criminal contempt for failing to comply with a September state Supreme Court decision.

In his ruling, Denton said that while he believes the county is guilty of civil contempt, he is "unable to conclude, based upon the evidence adduced, that there has been a willful, criminal contempt" of the Supreme Court's ruling.

According to court testimony, the newspaper asked the county for the cell phone records of county commissioners and a few other county officials in February 1998. When the county provided the records, portions of the phone numbers were redacted. The paper sued.

District Judge Kathy Hardcastle sided with the county, believing that the numbers should be confidential.

The newspaper took the issue to the Supreme Court, which overturned Hardcastle's ruling.

Deputy District Attorney Mary-Anne Miller told Denton during the Nov. 28 hearing that the county had turned over all of the records it is responsible for keeping and those it still had in its possession. She argued that the Supreme Court's decision did not mean the county had to go to the county's cell phone provider to obtain the missing documents.

In his decision, Denton wrote "the county is simply wrong in its contentions."

"What the county is maintaining in this regard is akin to saying that any private litigant who has been ordered to procure and provide copies of his records in the possession of a third party can, with impunity, refuse to give authorization to furnish the records," Denton wrote.

However, Denton said that because he believes the county simply "misread" the court's orders, he will give it one more chance.

"The county must do that which is necessary to obtain from any and all third parties the records previously furnished in unredacted form. If it takes a subpoena, so be it," Denton wrote.