Articles Posted in Communications Law

by
Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620, which prohibits a person from recording a telephone call unless both parties participating in the call consent to the recording, does not apply to the recording of interstate calls when the act of recording takes place outside Nevada. Respondent filed this class action suit against Appellant, a Delaware LLC that has its customer call centers equipped to record telephone calls in Arizona and Minnesota, alleging that Appellant violated section 200.620 by unlawfully recording certain telephone conversations without Respondent’s consent. The federal district court decided to certify a question concerning the applicability of section 200.620. The Supreme Court answered that the statute does not apply to recordings of telephone conservations with a person in Nevada without that person’s consent when the recordings are made by a party who is located and uses recording equipment outside of Nevada. View "Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles" on Justia Law

Posted in: Communications Law

by
CenturyLink, a private telecommunications provider, contracted with Clark County to provide inmate telephone services for the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) and to make records of the inmates’ calls available to the governmental agency operating the jail. Blackjack Bonding, Inc. made a public records request to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), the governmental entity that runs the CCDC, seeking records regarding calls to all telephone numbers listed on the various bond agent jail lists posted in CCDC for certain years. LVMPD denied the request. Blackjack then sought mandamus relief to compel LVMPD to provide the requested records. The district court (1) granted in part Blackjack’s request, stating that the requested records were public records that LVMPD had a duty to produce; and (2) denied Blackjack’s motion for attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in granting in part Blackjack’s petition for a writ of mandamus, as the requested information was a public record subject to LVMPD’s legal custody or control; and (2) abused its discretion by refusing to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to Blackjack. View "LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding" on Justia Law

Posted in: Communications Law