There are the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, but a gaming privilege? Welcome to Nevada. The ongoing saga that is Okada v. Wynn generated another Supreme Court opinion on discovery issues.
In the latest opinion, Okada wanted to obtain documentation concerning communications between Wynn and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) that concerned Okada between November 2011 and February 13, 2012. The documents could be relevant to evaluate Wynn’s stated reason for redeeming Okada’s shares in the company. Apparently the topic arose in a request for production and during a deposition. During the deposition, a Wynn director asserted the information was privileged. A motion to compel concerning the deposition and request for production was filed. Wynn argued NRS 463.120(6) applied, “which grants licensees and applicants the privilege to refuse to disclose any information or data communicated to the NGCB in connection with its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.” Okada argued the statute did not apply because the “requests for testimony and documents had been made over a year before the statute’s effective date of June 12, 2017, and the statute was not retroactive.” The Supreme Court concluded the statute did not apply because the discovery requests at issue were made before the statute’s effective date.
Privileges can be handy, but not if they did not exist at the time.
 Okada v. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Rep. 2 (Jan. 11, 2018)