By Discovery Commissioners Erin Lee Truman and Adam Ganz
In October 2021, the Eighth Judicial District Court’s Discovery Commissioners (Truman and former Commissioner Jay Young) published “Wanna Stay Out of Trouble in Discovery?”—a practical guide addressing recurring discovery issues and how practitioners could avoid them. Five years later, the discovery landscape has evolved, some familiar problems persist, and new issues have emerged. So, we thought it was time for an update and have written: “Stay Out of Trouble in Discovery 2.0” The full article will be available on the Discovery Department’s website, a readily accessible reference for Nevada practitioners confronting these issues. See https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/departments/discovery/.
Among the topics addressed are the affirmative initial disclosure obligations imposed by NRCP 16.1, including claims file materials, surveillance evidence, and applicable insurance information. The article also revisits the obligations that exist before a discovery objection is asserted, as well as the reasonable inquiry and certification requirements imposed by NRCP 26(g).
A substantial portion addresses stipulated protective orders and NRCP 26(c). The focus is not whether legitimately confidential information should be protected, but the procedure required to obtain that protection. When otherwise discoverable information is withheld pending execution of a stipulated protective order, who bears the burden of acting? The article examines Nevada authority—including Ballard v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 106 Nev. 83 (1990), Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 521 (1997), and Keolis Transit Services, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 138 Nev. 71 (2022)—and discusses the obligation of the party seeking confidentiality to identify the information at issue, establish the basis for protection, and timely invoke NRCP 26(c) when necessary.
We also address developments affecting current discovery practice, including Administrative Order 22-08 Regarding Deposition Behavior and the Supreme Court of Nevada’s decision in Powers v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (2026), finding NRS 629.630 (regarding physical and mental examinations) unconstitutional.
Finally, for family law practitioners, the article has a specific section related to common errors when filing discovery motions. Specifically, it examines the new EDCR 5.402 amended by Administrative Order 24-0612, including its robust meet-and-confer requirements and Section (g)’s requirement that a “request or motion to compel further answer to any written discovery must set forth in full the interrogatory or request and the answer or answers thereto.” Lastly, it includes a practical guide to drafting a Discovery Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations to prevent multiple requests for rewrites by the Department.
We encourage practitioners to review the full article and use it as a practical reference when preparing disclosures, responding to discovery, meeting and conferring, and presenting the disputes that genuinely require judicial resolution.
About the authors
Erin Lee Truman was appointed as the ADR Commissioner for the Eighth Judicial District Court in 2017; in 2019 she added Discovery Commissioner to her duties. Prior to joining the court, Erin litigated civil cases for 25 years, most recently with the law firm of Hutchison & Steffen, LLC. She also served as an arbitrator, mediator, and short trial judge for the court and was a neutral, practicing as a private mediator with Bongiovi Dispute Resolution. Erin graduated from J. Reuben Clark Law School in 1991.
Adam Ganz, a lifelong Nevada resident, graduated from the University of San Diego Law School in 1998. He has over 25 years in civil litigation, represented thousands, and volunteered with the Children’s Attorney Project. In 2022, he earned his LL.M. from Pepperdine and became the ADR/Discovery Commissioner in 2023. He recently was elected and will be serving as the next Eighth Judicial District Court Judge in Department 13, beginning January 2027.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (Sep 2026), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2026 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.