Mena rens 0? Scewax au eun u 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 2 28 lost MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 ALINA M. SHELL, Nevada Bar No. 11711 MCLETCHIE LAW 701 E. Bridger Avenue, Suite 520 ILas Vegas, NV 89101 ‘Telephone: (702) 728-5300; Fax (702) 425-8220 Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com Attorneys for Petitioner DISTRICT COURT Dap CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA > Pe Pppks LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, Case No.: A-17-750151-W Petitioner, Dept. No.: XVI o | EMERGENCY MOTION ON CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, | ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR ORDER REQUIRING Respondent. PRODUCTION OF RECORDS The Las Vegas Review-Journal (“Review-Journal”), by and through its counsel of lrecord, Margaret A. McLetchie and Alina M. Shell, hereby moves this Court for an order| directing the Clark County School District (*CCSD”) to produce public records. This request is made on an order shortening time. This motion and request are made and based upon the attached memorandum of [points and authorities, all papers and pleadings on file herein, and any oral argument allowed bby the Court at a hearing on this matter. Respectfully submitted this the 29" day of Octob, (eLetchie, Nevada Bar No. 10931 ™M. Shell, Nevada Bar No. 11711 MCLETCHIE LAW Attorneys for Petitioner 1 OCT 29 2018Secwmvuanneun "i 12 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER SHORTE! TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. Upon the Declaration of Margaret A. McLetchi and good cause appearing itherefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the time for] eating the above-entitled matter will be shortened and will be heard on the _/S day of 2018, at the hour of, soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. With regard to the production of records, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that * (1) consistent with the Nevada Supreme Court’s advanced opinion in Clark| jp.m., in the above-entitled Court or as| County School District v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (the “Opinion”), Ithe Clark County School District (hereinafter “CCSD”) shall produce the records it has ‘withheld in this action (the “Withheld Records”) to Petitioner, the Las Vegas Review-Journal (hereinafter “Review-Journal”) as soon as possible and no later than Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.; (2) The Withheld Records shall include all documents listed on CCSD's most recent (May 30, 2017) version of privilege log in this ease, including the following: a. A draft eight-page memorandum prepared by Cedric Cole on October 5, 2016 regarding the Office of Diversity and Affirmative Action’s investigation of allegations of misconduct by Trustee Child; b. Typed investigative notes written by Mr. Cole on various dates between January 28 and October 4, 2016; c. A four-page investigative memorandum written by Mr. Cole on October 19, 2016 and directed to CCSD Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky and the CCSD Board of Trustees; d. Three pages of Mr. Cole’s handwritten notes regarding the investigation of Trustee Child dated January 26, 2017; e. Nineteen pages of case notes authored by Mr. Cole between January 28, 2016 and May 25, 2017; f. An undated one-page document described as “ID of employees”;| covanax'onn cy ones a wR ww Sc we aa u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18, 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wh Wir Wie Mie Wit Vir Mis . A four-page draft investigative memorandum authored by Mr. Cole on October 5, 201 .__ Five pages of Mr. Cole’s typed notes created on February 10 and February 26, 2016; ‘A seven-page investigative memorandum created by Mr. Cole on October 5, 2016; Fourteen pages of investigative notes created by Mr. Cole between January 28, 2016 and October 4, 2016; . A twenty-page complaint dated May 5, 2017 directed to Mr. Cole regarding harassment by Trustee Child; A two-page May 22, 2017 addendum to the complaint; ‘A three-page draft investigative memorandum authored by Mr. Cole on May 16, 2017; .A two-page investigative memorandum prepared by Mr. Cole on May 26, 2017 for Superintendent Skorkowsky and the Board of Trustees; Three pages of “[p]ersonal notes regarding K. Child site visits and interactions” prepared by an unidentified author or authors between September 20, 2014 and April 4, 2017;” and Five pages of handwritten notes by Mr. Cole regarding the investigation of Trustee Child dated between September 7, 2016 and October 4, 2016,si ie Le s B Pu 8 i coopers) (3) Pending further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s Opinion, CCSD| may redact the names and identifying information of direct victims of sexual harassment or alleged sexual harassment, student, support staff, teachers, and witnesses in a manner consistent with the Opinion. DISTRI is COURT JUDGI Respectfully submitted, farggret A. MeLetchie, Nevada Bar No. 10931 |Alina M. Shell, Nevada Bar No. 11711 IMCLETCHIE LAW 1701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 520 ILas Vegas, Nevada 89101 ‘Counsel for Las Vegas Review-Journalcoesan'ouncy ovat DECLARATION OF MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE IN SUPPORT OF ORDER ‘SHORTENING TIME Margaret A. McLetchie declares as follows: 1. Tam an attomey duly licensed to practice before this Court. 2. Tam counsel for the Las Vegas Review-Journal (the “Review-Journal”) in| this matter. 3. This case involves petitions for public records made by the Review-Journal |pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act (“NPRA”), Nev. Rev. Stat. § 239.001 et seq. 4, On July 11,2017, this Court entered an order directing CCSD to produce to Ithe Review-Journal records related to an investigation conducted by CCSD’s Office of| [Diversity and Affirmative Action (“ODAA”) into allegations of misconduct by CCSD \School Board Trustee Kevin Child. 5. CCSD appealed this order to the Nevada Supreme Court 6. On October 25, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an advanced| lopinion, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 84, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the July 11, 2017 lorder. A copy of that opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (“Exh.”). 7. Inthe advanced opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s ldetermination that the ODAA records are public records subject to disclosure under the INPRA, but reversed the Court's determination that only the names of direct victims of sexual lharassment or alleged sexual harassment, students and support staff should be redacted, and remanded the matter to this Court for determination of whether teacher and/or witness names must also be redacted. (Exh. 1, p. 15.) 8. On October 25, 2018, after reviewing the advanced opinion, I emailed| |counsel for CCSD, Adam Honey. Then, Ms. Alina M. Shell, who is also counsel in this| Imatter, contacted Mr. Honey via telephone to request that CCSD either produce copies of the ODAA records with teacher and witness names redacted (along with other redactions consistent with this Court’s orders and the Opinion), or that CCSD make the records available or a Review-Journal reporter to inspect. Mr. Honey refused to make the records available to Ithe Review-Journal and expressed hostility and anger towards the idea of producing records.Mena 9. Also on October 25, 2018, I sent a second email to Mr. Honey reiterating lthe request that CCSD make the records available for inspection or copying. In that same lemail, I notified Mr. Honey that the Review-Journal would seek emergency intervention by Ithe Court if CCSD did not make the records available. Mr. Honey did not respond to that lemail. I also personally tried to reach Mr. Honey and CCSD’s acting General Counsel by [phone on October 25, 2018. 10, On October 29, 2018, I again emailed Mr. Honey to request CCSD make ithe ODAA records available for inspection or copying, and notified him that I would seek| ithis Court’s intervention if CCSD did not respond. I also attempted to call Mr. Honey again; I left him a voicemail on his CCSD work number again requesting the records, and again| lnotifying him that the Review-Journal would seek this Court’s intervention if CCSD did not lrespond. As of the time of filing the instant Motion, Mr. Honey has not responded to my’ lemails or phone call 11. Immediate relief is necessary so that the Review-Journal can obtai records about an elected official who is currently seeking re-election to the Clark) |County School District Board of Trustees. Trustee Child is currently running for re- lelection to the CCSD School Board of Trustees. Early voting began on October 20, 2018, and the general election is on November 6, 2018. As the Nevada Supreme Court observed in its opinion, Trustee Child is “accountable only to the voters.” (Exh, 1, p. 11.) Because voters} lin Trustee Child’s district are ultimately responsible for deciding whether he should serve| lanother term as a School Board Trustee, information about his alleged behavior is critical to |their decision-making. Thus, as this Court and the Nevada Supreme Court have recognized, Ithe democratic principles underlying the Nevada Public Records Act are especially important land enabling access is urgent. 12. Court intervention is also necessary to_protect the Review-Journal’s: First Amendment rights and ensure compliance with the letter and spirit of the NPRA. Every day that CCSD withholds records is a violation of the First Amendment and the NPRA, jas CCSD’s failure to produce to records deprives the Review-Journal of its ability to timelyrw isl 1G te S) S| coy enc) oma ee ee 10 W 12 2B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 report the news. See e.g., Associated Press v. US. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 705 F.2d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that a 48-hour delay in access was “a total restraint on the public's first amendment right of access even though the restraint is limited in time”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 507 (Ist Cir. 1989) (“even ja one to two day delay impermissibly burdens the First Amendment”), Given that early lvoting is ongoing, and the general election is in 8 days, the Review-Joural’s First| |Amendment interest in obtaining these records is particularly important. 13. To facilitate the purposes of the NPRA, protect the interests of the voting [public, and protect the Review-Journal’s First Amendment rights, the Review-Journal Irequests that this Court order CCSD make the redacted records available to the Review- \Journal by not later than 3:00 p.m, on Wednesday, October 31, 2018. 14, If this emergency motion were set in ordinary course, the Review-Journal Jwould not be able to seek the relief it requests, and the benefit to the public of access to records would be undermined. 15, Asnoted above, on October 25, 2018, I notified counsel for CCSD via email lof my intent to file the instant motion. In a subsequent email on October 29, 2018, I again told counsel for CCSD that I intended to seek emergency relief from this Court. 16, Above and beyond the requirements of Eighth Judicial District Court Rule 12.26, I will provide a courtesy copy of this motion to counsel for CCSD via email icontemporaneously with delivering it to the Court. Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 53.045(1), I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Executed on this the 29" day of October, 2018. fet A. McLetchieIMCLETCHIE|LAW, covayat ner vets 20 7 Cer nanneun 10 itt 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On October 25, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an advanced opinion in Clark County School District v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nev. S. 0461Ct. Case No. 173525. (See Exh. 1.) In the advanced opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's |determination in its July 11, 2017 Order that records of the investigation conducted by the JODAA into allegations of misconduct by School Board Trustee Kevin Child are public lrecords subject to disclosure under the NPRA. (See generally Exh. 1, pp. 2 and 7-11.!) Thus, the Court rejected the efforts by CCSD to withhold the investigatory records and found that the records should be produced. Thus, there is no good faith basis to withhold them, On October 25, 2018, the undersigned and her co-counsel in this matter contacted lcounsel for CCSD to request that CCSD immediately produce the ODAA records with the Inames of teachers and witnesses redacted consistent with the Supreme Court’s advanced opinion or, alternatively, make redacted versions of the records available for inspection. (Declaration of Margaret A. McLetchie (“McLetchie Decl.”), $f 8-9.) Counsel for CCSD refused to make the records available to the Review-Journal and expressed hostility towards lsimply making the records available with redactions. (Jd., 4 8.) The undersigned notified ‘counsel for CCSD on October 25, 2018 and October 29, 2018 that if CCSD did not make redacted versions of the records available, the Review-Journal would seek emergency intervention by this Court. (Id., fj 9-10.) As of the filing of the instant Motion, counsel for ICCSD has not agreed to produce records, } For the Court’s ease of reference, attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the last version of the! privilege log CCSD provided to the Review-Journal and the Court. ? The Court also found that this Court’s redaction order—which directed CCSD to redact lonly the names of direct victims of sexual harassment, alleged sexual harassment, students, land support staff—failed to consider the privacy interests of “teachers and witnesses who Imay face stigma or backlash for coming forward or being part of the investigation” and lremanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings to determine whether additional redactions must be made to the records to additionally protect teachers and witnesses. (Id., Ip. 15.)IMCLETCHIELAW) Ce aannneen 10 u 12 18 19 20 21 22 2B 24 25 26 27 28 ‘The 2018 general election will take place on November 6, 2018. Early voting for the 2018 election began on October 20, 2018, and is ongoing. As the Nevada Supreme Court lobserved in its advanced opinion, Trustee Child is “accountable only to the voters.” (Exh. 1, p. 11.) Because the voters in Trustee Child’s district are ultimately responsible for \deciding whether he should serve another term as a School Board Trustee, information about is alleged behavior is critical to their decision-making. As such, immediate access to the lwithheld records is of vital importance. Moreover, every day that CCSD withholds records is a violation of the First ‘Amendment and the NPRA, as CCSD’s failure to produce to records deprives the Review- Journal of its ability to timely report the news. See e.g., Associated Press v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent, Dist. of California, 705 F.2d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that a 48-hour delay in access was “a total restraint on the public’s first amendment right of access even {though the restraint is limited in time”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d |497, 507 (Ist Cir. 1989) (“even a one to two day delay impermissibly burdens the First | Amendment”). Given that early voting is ongoing, and the general eleetion is in 8 days, the /Review-Journal’s First Amendment interest in obtaining these records is at its zenith. Even if CCSD produces records in advance of any hearing set pursuant to the Irequested OST, a hearing addressing the status and redactions in this case is appropriate to lensure voters get access to information and the NPRA is complied with. DATED this the 29" day of October, 2018. 701 East Bridger Avenue, Suite 520 Las Vegas, NV 89101 ‘Telephone: (702)-728-5300 Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com Counsel for PetitionerEXHIBIT 1134.Nev, Advance Opinion BY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 73525, Appellant, E | L E D vs. LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, oct 25 2018 Respondent. for wi Appeal from a final order granting a petiti mandamus concerning a public records request. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Clark County School District, Office of General Counsel, and Adam D. Honey and Carlos L. McDade, Clark County, for Appellant. McLetchie Shell LLC and Margaret A. McLetchie and Alina M. Shell, Las Vegas, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC. OPINION By the Court, GIBBONS, J.: This appeal centers on Clark County School District (CCSD) employee complaints alleging inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, by an elected trustee. After the Office of Diversity and Affirmative Action (ODAA) conducted an investigation into the trustee's behavior, CCSD instituted the ODAA’s recommended policies and restricted the trustee’s access to employees and campuses. Respondent Las VegasReview-Journal (Review-Journal) began running. stories detailing the investigation and the complaints. The Review-Journal made a related records request to which CCSD continually delayed its response. Eventually, the Review-Journal filed a petition, and then an amended petition, for a writ of mandamus under the Nevada Public Records Act, requesting that the district court compel disclosure. The district court granted the first petition and then asserted jurisdiction over the amended petition as well. After holding a hearing on the amended petition and viewing the withheld documents in-camera, the district court filed an order granting the Review-Journal’s amended writ petition and ordered disclosure, allowing for limited redaction. CCSD argues that the district court erred by ordering disclosure of CCSD’s investigative materials and, alternatively, directing CCSD to provide minimally redacted investigative materials to the Review-Journal. We hold that the district court did not err by ordering disclosure of the records, but adopt a two-part, burden shifting test to determine the scope of redaction of names of persons identified in an investigative report with nontrivial privacy claims, and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY CCSD officials met with Trustee Kevin Child in March of 2016 after allegations arose regarding his inappropriate behavior, including allegations of sexual harassment. The behaviors included speaking to students about suicide and other inappropriate matters, making suggestive sexual comments and gestures towards employees, including teachers, and engaging in disruptive, threatening, and inappropriate behavior at public events. The ODAA subsequently launched an investigation, The resulting ODAA recommendation states that Child’s behavior resulted in what could | be considered a hostile work environment under Title VII. Therecommendation further concluded that the environment was one in which Child’s behavior goes unchecked. This is largely because most employees are unwilling to confront him about his behavior and/or are reluctant to file a formal complaint against him because he is perceived to be “The Boss.” Based on these findings, the ODAA recommended severely limiting Trustee Child’s access to district properties and employees. CCSD acted on these recommendations on December 5, 2016, implementing strict guidelines for future visits by Trustee Child and distributing those guidelines throughout CCSD via email. ‘That same day, a Review-Journal reporter made an initial document request. CCSD responded that it had received and was processing the request. A few days later, CCSD responded that it could not, get the information requested within five days, as required by NRS 239.0107 of the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA); however, it would hopefully have the information by December 16, 2016. CCSD then changed that date to January 9, 2017, and then to January 13, 2017. On January 26, 2017, the Review-Journal filed its first petition for writ relief asking the district court to compel CCSD to produce the requested records. CCSD eventually provided some records to the Review-Journal and, on February 9, 2017, the Review-Journal featured one of many articles on Trustee Child. On February 10, 2017, the Review-Journal made an expanded, amended records request pursuant to NRS 239.010 of the NPRA, based on information learned from the first batch of disclosed records. The district court held a hearing on the writ petition for the initial records request on February 14, 2017. There, counsel for the Review-Journal stated that CCSD had finally provided some records; nevertheless, the issue before the1900 > court now was “the scope of redactions.” Counsel for the Review-Journal argued that, although it recognized the names of victims and people that have come forward should be protected, CCSD went too far. CCSD had redacted the names of the administrators, principals, and supervisors addressing those complaints, and the names of schools. The district court granted. the Review-Journal’s first writ petition and ordered that “any names of students or support staff. . . be redacted and any direct victims alleging sexual harassment.” The district court also set a status check for the second records request. The first order was filed February 22, 2017. On February 17, 2017, CCSD sent a response to the Review- Journal regarding the amended February records request, where it asserted the same privileges addressed in the prior writ hearing. In mid-March, CCSD provided the Review-Journal with a more extensive account of the types of document searches it was doing, the privileges they were asserting, and a more particularized privilege log. CCSD provided approximately 100 pages of documents between February 3, 2017, and March 3, 2017, in response to the records requests. Most of the documents contained employee complaints about Trustee Child. On May 9, 2017, the parties appeared before the district court for a hearing on the amended request. During the hearing, counsel for CCSD and the district court discussed “what further democratic principle is furthered” by the Review-Journal’s request for all the documents leading up to the ODAA recommendation. CCSD argued that it had already provided the Review-Journal with the policy and recommendation, as well as many emails outlining the complaints against Child. Thus, it had complied with the principles encouraging disclosure. The district court recognized the important interest in preserving victims’ privacy. Thedistrict court also reasoned that the overriding policy interest to be weighed was the fact that this matter involves the public actions of an elected official—a trustee—and CCSD’s response to that elected official's actions. The district court then ordered CCSD to provide the court with a full privilege log of all responsive documents and an in-camera review of all the withheld records. On July 11, 2017, after reviewing the withheld documents in-camera and CCSD’s submitted privilege log, the district court entered an order granting the writ of mandamus regarding the withheld records. That order is the subject of this appeal. CCSD specifically takes issue with disclosing documents that were part of the investigation leading up to the recommendation made by the ODAA. CCSD argues these documents are confidential by law, should be confidential on balance, or alternatively that additional redactions are necessary. DISCUSSION NRS 239.010, the NPRA, provides “unless otherwise declared by law to be confidential, all public books and public records of a governmental entity must be open at all times during office hours to inspection by any person.” Accordingly, the first relevant inquiry is whether CCSD’s withheld documents are confidential by law. City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 60, 63 P.3d 1147, 1149-50 (2003). “The Legislature has declared that the purpose of the NPRA is to further the democratic ideal of an accountable government by ensuring that public records are broadly accessible.” Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 877-78, 266 P.3d 623, 626 (2011). In 2007, “the Legislature amended the NPRA to provide that its provisions must be liberally construed to maximize the public's right of access.” Id. at 878, 266 P.3d at 626 (citing NRS 239.001 (2007)). Moreover, the Legislature ensured that a state entity that wishes to “withhold records, bears the burden of proving, by apreponderance of the evidence, that the records are confidential by law.” Id. (citing NRS 239.0113). “[I]n the absence of a statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to be confidential, any limitations on disclosure must be based upon a broad balancing of the interests involved.” Id. at 880, 266 P.3d at 628 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Further, “the state entity bears the burden to prove that its interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public's interest in access.” Id. CCSD contends that by ordering disclosure of CCSD’s investigative materials, the district court: (1) erred under the Nevada Public Records Act by stripping CCSD employees of the rights afforded them by other confidentiality laws, both federal and administrative; and (2) erred in limiting CCSD’s ability to redact. More specifically, CCSD argues that this court should reverse the district court order under: (a) federal law and federal guidelines;! (b) CCSD regulations; (c) the deliberative process privilege; (d) the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC)? and (e) the common law balancing test set forth in Donrey of Nevada, Inc. », Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 635, 798 P.2d 144, 147 (1990). ICCSD has failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, why its investigative materials are confidential under federal law. However, CCSD’s arguments regarding federal law are relevant to the balancing of interests discussed in the body of this opinion. 2CCSD argues that some of the investigative materials are “nonrecord materials” under NAC 239.051. However, in Comstock Residents Association v. Lyon County Board of Commissioners, we held that the NAC, specifically NAC 239.051, does not limit the scope of the NPRA. 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 19, 414 P.3d 318, 322 n.1 (2018) (holding that NAC 239.001 and NAC 239.051 constitute “administrative regulations pertaining to local records management programs, and do not determine the overall scope of the NPRA....”). Accordingly, this argument is without merit.A district court’s grant or denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking access to public records is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 877, 266 P.3d at 626. However, where “the petition entails questions of law, [this court] review[s] the district court's decision de novo.” Id. “[QJuestions of statutory construction, including the meaning and scope of a statute, are questions of law.” Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. at 58, 63 P.3d at 1148. CCSD raises a number of arguments as to why the district court should not have ordered disclosure of its investigative materials. Insofar as CCSD’s arguments center around which guidelines, regulations, and administrative codes may declare certain records to be confidential by law, we review this matter de novo. See id. The withheld documents are not confidential by law CCSD argues that its regulations are laws with legal effect under NRS 386.350 and, under those regulations, the documents that the district court ordered it to disclose are confidential by law. See NRS 386.350 (‘Each board of trustees is hereby given such reasonable and necessary powers, not conflicting with the Constitution and the laws of the State of Nevada ....”). However, we have already indicated that such internal regulations do not limit the NPRA. Quite recently, in Comstock Residents Association v, Lyon County Board of Commissioners, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 19, 414 P.8d 318, 322 (2018), we held that the NAC “doles] not limit the reach of the NPRA, but merely establish[es] regulations for good records management practices of those local programs.” Further, we emphasized that, “[t]he best practices for local government record management and what constitutes a public record for purposes of the NPRA are distinct, and we are careful not to conflate them here.” Id. Under the rationale set forth in Comstock Residents Association, CCSD’s regulations do not limit the scope of the NPRA. Rather, the regulations merely establish good recordsmanagement practices for CCSD. Ascribing a force to such regulations that limits the NPRA would create an opportunity for government organizations tomake an end-run around the NPRA by drafting internal regulations that render documents confidential by law. While the regulations undoubtedly play an essential role in CCSD’s internal operations for sensitive harassment issues, we hold that they do not render the withheld documents confidential by law under the NPRA. The district court did not abuse its discretion when, after balancing the interests, it determined that the documents should not be withheld “(IIn the absence of a statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to he confidential, any limitations on disclosure must be based upon a broad balancing of the interests involved, and the state entity bears the burden to prove that its interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public's interest in access.” Gibbons, 127.Nev. at 880, 266 P.3d at 628 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). As CCSD’s remaining arguments regarding confidentiality implicate this balancing test, we review this portion of the order for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 877, 266 P.3d at 626; DR Partners v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Clark Cty., 116 Nev. 616, 621, 6 P.3d 465, 468 (2000) (“Unless a statute provides an absolute privilege against disclosure, the burden of establishing the application of a privilege based upon confidentiality can only be satisfied pursuant to a balancing of interests . ...”). Deliberative process privilege CCSD argues that it is not required to disclose the withheld documents because the documents fall within the protections afforded under the deliberative process privilege. See DR Partners, 116 Nev. at 622, 6P.3d at 469 (“The deliberative process or ‘executive’ privilege is one of the traditional mechanisms that provide protection to the deliberative anddecision-making processes of the executive branch of government.”). “It is well settled that privileges, whether creatures of statute or the common law, should be interpreted and applied narrowly.” Id. at 621, 6 P.3d at 468. Under the privilege, governmental entities may conceal public records only if the entity can prove that the relevant public records were part of a predecisional and deliberative process that led to.a specific decision or policy. Id. at 623, 6 P.3d at 469. The agency bears the burden of establishing, with particularity, “the character of the decision, the deliberative process involved, and the role played by the documents in the course of that process.” Id. at 623, 6 P.3d at 470 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). CCSD argues that the withheld documents, which include the investigative file leading up to the ODAA’s recommendation, are subject to the deliberative process privilege. However, the central purpose of the privilege is “protecting the decision making processes of government agencies.” N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 US. 132, 150 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the deliberative process privilege does not apply in situations where the government's actions are in question, particularly where the records may reveal a potential Title VII violation, E.g., Anderson v. Marion Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 220 F.R.D. 555, 560 (S.D. Ind. 2004) (“If the plaintiff's cause of action is directed at the government's intent, however, it makes no sense to permit the government to use the privilege as a shield. For instance, it seems rather obvious to us that the privilege has no place in a Title VII action or ina constitutional claim for discrimination.”) (quoting In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 145 F.3d 1422, 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). “Moreover, the privilege ‘should be invoked a CTonly in the context of communications designed to directly contribute to the formulation of important public policy.” Id. at 560-61 (emphasis in original) (quoting Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 612 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “To extend the deliberative process privilege to a recommendation as to a particular personnel matter extends it beyond its present form to protect from disclosure what would otherwise be evidence relevant to plaintiff's complaint of discrimination.” Id. at 561 (quoting Waters v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 216 F.R.D. 153, 163 (D.D.C. 2003)). Here, while one issue from the Child matter involves Child’s behavior, an additional issue involves how CCSD handled the discrimination complaints and the investigation. To allow CCSD to invoke the deliberative process privilege to prevent disclosure of the investigative materials leading up to the ODAA decision would allow CCSD to shield itself from the Review-Journal’s inquiry into how CCSD conducted that investigation. Allowing both disclosure, as well as redaction of victims’ names, serves the competing purposes of Title VII. Doing so protects the confidentiality of the victims, while allowing inquiry into CCSD’s response. Moreover, while Trustee Child is not technically an employee of CCSD, the policy imposes rules and restrictions on how other employees within the district interact with the trustee. Finally, Trustee Child’s behavior, and CCSD’s investigation into it, are not part of a deliberative process because there is no decision or policy CCSD is making that would invoke this privilege to begin with. Thus, the policy set forth by CCSD is not an “important public policy” but merely a “particular personnel matter” limited to a single individual under specific and isolated facts. Id. at 560-61. Accordingly, we hold CCSD has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate why the deliberative process privilege applies and, therefore, the district Siren Com Nowon (or 804 ae EE 10 ee SS ET TTcourt did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply the privilege to this matter. Common law balancing test CCSD has failed to demonstrate that the documents are confidential as a matter of law or fall within the deliberative process privilege. We must now determine whether the balancing test, as.set forth in Gibbons, warrants nondisclosure. A government entity cannot meet its burden for preventing disclosure by “voicing non-particularized hypothetical concerns.” DR Partners, 116 Nev. at 628, 6 P.3d at 472-73. CCSD contends, and presents some evidence, that employees have expressed fear of being identified or retaliated against by Trustee Child. The Review-Journal counters that there is a great public interest in transparency here, particularly in light of the unique facts of this case, where the allegations pertain to a trustee accountable only to the voters, rather than CCSD management. In fact, as the Review-Journal points out, CCSD’s purpose, to protect employees, is best served by transpareney and any privacy interests can be satisfied by redaction, On balance, the Review- Journal’s argument is more persuasive and, while CCSD does give some evidence of individuals’ fears of retaliation, it fails to demonstrate why complete nondisclosure, rather than redaction, is the better solution. Accordingly, we hold that CCSD’s argument here is unpersuasive and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit CCSD to withhold the documents in their entirety. That part of the district court's order requiring CCSD to disclose the documents is affirmed. Privacy interests and redaction in public record disclosure CCSD argues that the district court should have allowed it to redact more information. In essence, CCSD’s request to redact spans fromwithholding everything, because all facts are witness identifiers, to merely withholding names of all complainants and teacher witnesses. The district court order reads: Pursuant to the Court's February 23, 2017 Order, ! CCSD may redact the names of direct victims of sexual harassment or alleged sexual harassment, students, and support staff. ‘The Court will then provide the documents to the Review-Journal. Further, the district court indicated that CCSD had not “proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any interest in nondisclosure outweighs the strong presumption in favor of public access.” The district court, quoting Deseret News Publishing Co. v. Salt Lake County, 182 P.3d 372, 383 (Utah 2008), then listed additional interests weighing against redaction. In part, CCSD appears to be asking that this court adopt a test similar to that used in the district court's cited case, Deseret News Publishing Co., 182 P.3d at 380; see also Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 856 F.3d 626, 637 (9th Cir. 2017). Nevada has not previously adopted a test. that shifts the burden of proof onto the party secking disclosure to show the interest in the information sought. We are inclined to do so now in cases in which the nontrivial personal privacy interest of a person named in an investigative report may warrant redaction. ‘The Cameranesi test is a two-part balancing test. It first requires the government to establish a “personal privacy interest stake to *The referenced February order reads: CCSD may not make any other redactions, and must unredact the names of schools, all administrative-level employees, including but not limited to deans, principals, assistant principals, program coordinators)[sicl, and teachers.ensure that disclosure implicates a personal privacy interest that is nontrivial or... more than [] de minimis.” Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637. “Second, if the agency succeeds in showing that the privacy interest at stake is nontrivial, the requester ‘must show that the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one and that the information [sought] is likely to advance that interest.” Id. While Cameranesi (and Deseret News, 182 P.3d at 380-82) interpreted a statute providing an exception to disclosure of public records, 856 F.3d at 637-38, Nevada’s common law provides a similar exception. Nevada's common law recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy for unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another. PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Lid., 111 Nev. 615, 629-36, 895 P.2d 1269, 1279-83 (1995), overruled on other grounds by City of Las Vegas Downtown Redev. Agency v, Hecht, 113 Nev. 644, 650, 940 P.2d 134, 138 (1997). The purpose of the tort is to provide redress for intrusion into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, seclusion, or solitude. Id. The Legislature has also recognized privacy interests in a laundry list of areas, NRS 239.010(1), including NRS Chapter 603A, defining personal information (names, social security numbers, etc.) in NRS 603A.040 that must be protected against disclosure under NRS 603A.210. The list in NRS 239.010(1) also includes confidentiality provisions in NRS 200.3771 and NRS 200.3772, confidentiality for victims of sexual offenses. On that topic, the Legislature declared, “The public has no overriding need to know the individual identity of the victim of a sexual offense...” NRS 200.337(5). Given Nevada’s established protection of personal privacy interests, we hold that Nevada’s common law protects personal privacy interests from unrestrained disclosure under the NPRA, and we adopt the test in Cameranesi, 856 F.3d906 at 637, to balance the public's right to information against nontrivial personal privacy interests. This approach is a logical extension of Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 635, 798 P.2d 144, 147 (1990). In Donrey, this court implicitly recognized that unless a statute expressly creates an absolute privilege against public disclosure, limitations on disclosure must be based upon balancing interests of nondisclosure against the general policy of open government. 106 Nev. at 634-36, 798 P.2d at 146- 47, The Cameranesi balancing test facilitates a court's balancing of nontrivial privacy interests against public disclosure. See Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637. For example, in this case, this test balances the nontrivial privacy interests of teachers having their names publicly disclosed with bringing attention to an issue with an elected public official within a public school district. Thus, we believe the Cameranesi test provides a better way to determine if a government entity should redact information in a public records request. This test coheres with both NRS 239.0113 and Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 877-78, 266 P.3d at 625-26. It is merely a balancing test—in the context of a government investigation—of individual nontrivial privacy rights against the publie’s right to access public information. Carlson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2017 WL 3581136, at *28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017). We explained in Gibbons that NRS 239.0113 requires that the state bear the burden of proving that records are confidential. Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 878, 266 P.3d at 626. The Cameranesi test does that, but also gives the distriet courts a framework to weigh the public's interest in disclosure, by shifting the burden onto the public record petitioner, once the government has met its burden, This ensures that the district courts are adequately weighing the competing interests of privacy and government accountability.CONCLUSION Here, the district court only ordered that. the names ‘of direct victims of sexual harassment or alleged sexual harassment, students, and support staff may be redacted. Problematically, this list excludes teachers or witnesses who may face stigma or backlash for coming forward or being part of the investigation. The privacy interest of these persons should be considered before disclosure of their names or other information that would identify them. Accordingly, we reverse the redaction order of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jd. Gibbons Cs. J. J Pickering rn J. bom ta So > J. Parraguirre ANG. Stiglich ‘von 16 108 i v iEXHIBIT 2£107 ‘OE ACW TenpIAtpu ‘onqnd jeisted | ozat ut puP asoo Jo sioquious 30 Bursq Pu (payepas) 1 reinfiay | souapuodsasi00 soaisnay, seeKojdura ££0-160 GS90 ‘ose98¢ SUN ‘010°6E7 SUN ue sued sop | _qso9 sour, | soopuo pois sy | _‘6z0-vz0 ‘sz0-bz0 (perepar) ‘sung epury | siovens “mais sees] osvajou ase soadojduuo enpiatput | stunupe | ‘€ysmoxzoys ye Jo sour 31 yoay39' soo snowe, | — uapuormadng HeIEIO4 Jo 3 “(p2yoepoa) lem pu ayes £9] i AIsMOOYS seaKojduro €20-720 SOO ‘0S¢'98E SUN ‘010'6E7 SUN | Rd | G99 snouen | _soop uo pawns sv | ‘070-910 ‘p10-100 Suprowmia soy siseq | jedkt wswmseq | yuardrooy souny awa “ON 316g ‘PSI-ESI PUR YOST *621-121 :Yoswes Arenugeg SMR Jo Sun Te SHO 10" PIP B1osos0\H PUB *L|/2Z/z UO HDI 8S AOYe parEP ate BSTO-IZ10 Woy IYD aaysnay FuIpIeSaa wWwarU0D) p¢ ~OMNOUPOOY, 99K0F,, ye SuuiB9q ZZ pue |Z] :opnyout soBed Poonpaid fisnorsang soma spuosas / 1/91/72 ui ob asus) Ut LI/C2/2 Wo poronpuco says yo aun ayy aouotsx9 ut Jou atom tp spi0d9s pus poonpoud Aisnotsaud souinoop ‘pnfouy Pure Busway { 1/6/¢ au We LNOD atp Aq payoauip sayoxeas. tp HurmoTToF parea0] ax0m oyaaY poyoE} 1Z1 808ed 4x “seeKoxdua GSO9 a1 INDY, paysnteps Ajsnorsasd sjenpyarpu ystoMeoMUDI Jo ION MéISTOSLLI-V "ON 2509 - S99" FYAT TORILSIG TOOHDS AINNOD WAVTDz L107 ‘o¢ key LUCC/e PaleP PIO | YL suoMNDEAE S1yeu-a uo ] S,u0D yota quarsisuod epewt suoRoEpOY RsKeW-a snowea Snowe, | pois se snow, 16800-€900 [ quel Aqrewonuayu 7900-1900 | (wenpmpuEy) SON oaneasoAUy sofoqlatid wonsy aspeuysy reusayuy Pu AS19410 J0 99450 Jopun Mojeg s9g | _ pue jeMapYUO aun | 2105 an1p23 Luge 090-850 ~ sons, 30 patog, unpuezomeyy, soy aug wonoy aapeuLysy PAHEBHSOAUT | _AysMoyZo4g ue Auss941q Jo 2910 spun Mofag 39g Tenuapyyu0> wa 910 PID gueror | £$00-ps00 (eonpmpueyy | S10N oaneBysoauy supr01 so@o[Alg wonsy aapeuTy yeuaayuy B 91/6U16 91IETI6 ue Auys1941( Jo 29440 Joptm wojag 23g | pue renuapyNOD y 2u0N 2109 PD | “9LEL/6 ‘OL/LI6 fs00-6r00 7 OU/b/OT P9166 “ouezi6 ‘9LIE6 “ST/LI6 ‘9L/6I% (pads) ‘oT/ogie SO}ON PANBBASoAUy “OLEUE ‘LOTT soBo[AH4g wondy eaeunyy Teuzoyuy ‘st/0Z ‘91/6/2 ue ANSIOAIC J0 2940 Japan morg 99g | pur renMapYOD | yye1q yeus>rUE 3109 1499 | _“9T/S/e ‘OLBTIE | 8b00-zr00 UnpuEzoUapy eapeBpsoauy soBoqaLid woHDY aaneULSY weusoyuy ue AysreAtd 50 29U40 sopuM MoTeg 99g | pur eNuepYNOD | ye1c yeussIU #10 9H1PaD 9us/O1| ___t00-F¢00 | i LURE paiep syeuro uo) (22210 une on ywensand apew suonsepoy | PID “4 sea snowe, snouv, | pores se snoue,, VE€00-V 1000 c ‘paswoyou aie‘40 suetono9p asaq], sone si ut ans) we sionbas pes ayo} aasuodsas iy “> Bupnyou aaa AU rp, "THA'T ©} paanpaud Ajsno.aaud useq aaey sowoop “enprps vant Ae stu L107 ‘¢ vam wo peanpond swoxunsap st P29 J0 woyyoy vs poy a OYA ssi Jo Ya!asw umanal sou seg : L107 “OE KEW sno pus Suto 1/652 Jo serv are SaumoOp as "THAT 01 paanpoud Aisnoraaid woo 99 3 odor aso} wasanda STI osa4) 294, “PayoHeas 299 A}snotazad poy eS soto Alig Wonoy eanEULIY | Teitioyay | yuaumoop ue Ayst9a1q Jo 99450 49puN Mo}og 295 | puE reHUaPyUOD Feuxoyuy M109 9PID |_,9T/9z/e “OL/OLT 8810-F8T0 | wimpuesowayy aneSinsoAuy | soy aud wonoy sapemayyy | Due Anjs424iq Jo 9140 49puN Moleg 20g yer rewroyuy | 2j09 a11pa9 9v/s/oL £810-6L10 soloqfaqag WORDY DANEULISY UOUINDOp ure Ayssaaiq Jo 2943 4opun wojag 295 | _sookordura so at Tewroyuy 2109 91125 SuON 8210 so%oyAtg HORS aADEMETY 5910 | yuoumDop Pus Aapss944q JO 890 JopEM Mola 995 | ase ENUAPIUO> Tewroyuy 2109 2PID | _LUSUS-OL/8z/t LL10-6S10 620T6E SUN $66 ued "Wa'D ve ‘Bzezt ‘O'S’ 02 BS (vaUa) oY Avenue pur siyry [euonwonpg Ajrarey ‘saquiow 4ye1s yoddns pu ouret 3uopms | pad es uoddnspuored ‘spoou uoeanpa roads 304 40 uonduosop pus auret Pin s Buypnjous ‘L 1/2z/¢ Pawwp Jop19| “yy sjuounyoene sireu-o uo 8. UaIsIsUoD ape SuOISEpOy 2 snoue, smouea | porisse snoueA |, 8CLO-IZI0 ae ] LU/Czre Pewee sop | yy swuewmypeNTE S.uno} YIM jWaisist09 apeus suoNsEprY 2B SW snoue, | snout, 0710-6010 LU/CCIe PREP 19p1Q, | S2um0D Wis woisisuoo apew suonaEpeY | PID “y / snowe,, snoue, | pars se snowen 8010-0600“rnowomp sa} uot umpuEy Suy pu ,stHEI>UOD KyuMLAWIOD,, ‘owiss a1 22] Peonposd 3u2q 0 918,109 WH sem YEIP a. “pect sO}HED osUNOD E3909 GSD, asON aM v L102 ‘O¢ AoW “Popton aed w soprjou ing sy0-240,0 yep aanwonidng , worne2 Jo zaepunge uu ota ap 8 Uo sorou uanunpuy a, “bsg “@peaaW winpaesoweyy sopse soBoqiaug wonay oapemayyy aapeBnsoauy | “Kyswoxsoyg ue Ay1Ss941d Jo 29114 FopUN Mojog 99g Tepuepyu0y Wd 3109 94paD Lu9us 0£20-6720 | ‘winpue soupy sapednsoauy sofopapg ony aanewuayyy Pus Aays1981q Jo 99150 Japun mopeg 29g yeag yeusoyuy 9109 914p9D, LUIS 8720-9720 | sotayialad uonoy aaneuyyy Pu Aysaaaid Jo 29430 J9pun mopog 39g 2109 24129 Lutes stzo-pezo soBaqatig wonay aapewayyy ue AySs941C J0 99450 J9pUN Mofog 99g guperdweg | 9103 apo tee LU/sIS £220-v070 | - - [ OU/PI0T 91/616 “S1/EUI6 ‘9T/ELI6 ‘OULI6 ‘9L/6I¥ (pod) ‘ouoeie. S910 sAneBsaauy ‘suewe sui9ze sofiopatid wonoy aapeuuysy Teuzoyuy ‘91oUe ‘9L/6/Z ue Auxoard Jo 29440 Japun MoPag 298 | _pue remapyNED | syerd feusa.Uy | 2109 spa | ‘91/S/e ‘OL/SZ/T £070-9610 TEINpUELONIIA, seBoTIAlag wondy sapmuLyy eapednsoauy ue Ayss941q Jo a94J spun Mo}og reuxoyuy | 2298 PuE ABONALd WHD —Astony | pu repuapyuoy | yexg reusoruy 3109 911P99 | SUS/OT $610-6810 (podaiy SOON aapedipsoauts L107 ‘OE Ao ‘INO owt wonton yo ied se “1721 19 au I BuO sO soy By og zoe du (2) stooyps Jo Aanvep} eunpy 001 papraaue suosiod jo Ainiuop] ‘saype1 jo PI ‘suonsod pue woryeuuzoju Sutpraosd (z) iad Jo Armuap] ~ (¢9 afd se owes) ¢ Joouoy poyrodes uostad pue Sunzodar ‘uostad jo uonisod pu Ainuap] ~ z [ooyas 0 pu vosiod puz sosiazadns jo (¢) stooyes 30 Anuapl- eunpy 28IuA Jo An uapT= 22ya"9} Jo Anwapy ‘suo} ‘uoneunosui Burprsoid (z) suosiad 3 cunpy. £0 ue Ainuap zampy | zo | payAvepr Koyoods 1oresrunuIpe 221H0 au0 put sosiarodns Jo Ai 22141 Jo Womtsod pur ooyds ‘i Limpy 10. suonoepoy. Aanuap 4 280g ‘0-2v0 s2¥ea ut pouteanoo sarep oures aun Jo sojou uanuaad& oy paonpos kjsnoraudaxbH So} UOMUMpUEY ag Suonoeioiuy pue | SUES 15 PUD wonoy eaneuLTysy “y Suppsedos So a, aL107 ‘oe KEW, aA 40 Anuapy ~ (6]-8] aed se ows) jrewio wonog 01 pardoo puv quordisas jo Aynuapy — jrowe doy, sampy £rgt BUM Jo AUAPT = £1-21 soBed uo ,jreura wonog,, se au1eg cainpy SIL PIM JO ‘Aanuop] — (§1-p1 soBed sv oures) jrewo wonog wuardinas Jo Amuapy — yew doy, | qampy won sod yey 203 | Suyuuna suosind jo sonnuapr pue z autod yang | Ur pasuasajaz tonIsod pajoaja paytoads ‘(gyinpy). Pardoo wostod puv (synpy) soit2m Jo Aanuap] — 60-89 Safed uo ,.ew woHIog, se aug sainpy ieor ‘woRisod rewp 20j Surtuns suosiod 4J0 sonnwapt pue z yutod uontsod parsaja payioads § Ayguapy — (Sainpy) \rews jo quardioos pue (oynpy) som 30 AnuspT 9 pur § synpy (00 apeur jure} dizo9 wosiad yo AWOpE Hatt sume ues ret uosiod Jo Auapt pu ¢ yulod sp1IMq Ur paouazajas uomsod pooaye aytoadg- 23104 Jo ArUEPI- sanpy 20-90 ‘01 papinoid uoeuEIOjU twosiad Jo Anuapy Hate) pure poxmao0 kaAE [OOYDS Je WooY ‘uoHEULIO;UI SuIpIAosd wosiod Jo uontsod pue Aiquapy 001 papiaoud uoreutyut woszad jo Aiquapy !pauund90 1uaAo JooyDs Ye WOOY ~ | ooyssL L10¢ ‘O€ ACW “Serna se89 20) oy F=RPENE ae "L102 °C NE Pw LEHI gf | KURay Jo suoReUMNOD ay 7 a aa ngtOY saneuuiyy pu AstoaIq Jo 22u}0 ‘2owo11q onnnoexa‘2[00 otIpEC Aa pore 40 paarooas Ten St 2uoR Hed ok poprvoud u29q You sey win RuymeWeuotyeMopU q (uoRanpord yeege fo oth) “€ Yom pur 42 Atorago4 wo JouoMnag ©} Suoniorunarwioa stou $o Avm Aq ysanbou prooas ‘L192 ‘Or Ksmuqag ain 9A 194 saHajauid payosse Aysnorsaid sey. qg5 (so8oqayad Suyaoqfoy am sopun AyoapuD sq) UY PIOHTBIA Wa9q OABY YOTUA “EEZO-6STO PUE Q90-pE0 04 aiquonddy) STOIAHE BORDY sABEURTY pUE AISIOAIG JO oIO itm Jo ANWapT qwquEW Sygna | — fe _ Jum Jo ATHUap|- ce 32114m 40 Amquapl= Ie awored 30 Anuopy= 62 ‘SSSUpPE [Youd s,tuapuauuiadng- [o0yps jo Aanuopy- 221m Jo Amuap- JL soypva, sountog 80-L2 Jourmy pur Yoeo9 Jo A:n)uep|- 38 paumna90 ywoAa joouss- eunpy aval ~ ‘0c aed se ourg VIN | zz Gaba si yo soueisqns sip 0} paysautos os) | ouepuoye Ur Suioq JOU WINNS “spy 40} UOSDDy- WN | oz Cc 0} patdoo pure aa jo Amuop|- sanpy 6r-8r |g L107 ‘og Ae “(0002) 129 * RSDUHET HC “pafaiatsd ssao0id onnasoqnop au) sopun porsoton ‘A9N 911 “AUHOD 5HB|D JO HOUT SSHNTTOT TUNG FO PHETG 2sne599 pasojosip a9 0) poxinbou.0u os 81 uoLteutyuY at, (0661) 0£9 0N 901 ‘RUNSPEIG "A SUT WHEN IO RIG {0002} 1e9°919 Aen 911 “UR ID Jo SHUOUNAIOD MUAOD JO PEO A eG GG Sol ee 000 Oa oma eePutO® at swawONp oo4p‘xojeity fonaead opeUDAORI fyaefan pede jeow Roy J0981n00 Sn NOHOY SANPUUEY Pt ASIA J0 20140 OM 30 soa aMOON 6,083 AQ PalNES to polooe mae sjuownoop 9saq) onan atf Jo saquiour & £q woneprumut so sussouo9 sejuts sjponca Twaundop soyjoUy ,aalnioddins,, Iisonbot cat pdea Suus0u0D Sassaldxo seKo|dwi rayoue ia. esnowAuOUe Kna}dWOD Higumws sip doay aseayd nos UE }.UOP am 2smB59q sansst as2uf Hodas 03 wwEHSOY ase am 1 ou Jo stoquiow pu saaKoydwa Aq ASSOICK paves ase sway 0 uwostata 340m s0q Jo soy OY, “Bunsodas sunny wo voayyo Om ay} 01 [WOULD 2q pInoM soureU aun FNTeoAay uod passaidxs 20 paurejdwioo oyre suosiod aun Jo sarin 9H Pus “uOREpIUIAUY uOUILONTAND 30% 3] 879 "AON O11 SRURGT UE .suso9u Jouuro Ainus joUMUDADH Y “9E-SE9 Te “AN 90 | TSO Suto. ol YG .wwourw9908 uodo jo sonny ut Aotjod jesouad auq ysureSe on 99 IW O10'6E7 SUN Jo SuDWIoMINBOL aunsojoSIp PIDUaH otp uO *(0661) 09 “42N 901 “meyspeag INBIY SIO 'Z1Z1 vonvinBsy GSIO ‘9zL'b8z OWN '81L°682 OWN, 2 ruepyo Jo oseaj oy azznbau iu soop me spuosau ghd oy “n BPEADN JO “SHOT ‘O11 UonoINBoY qs, ‘OSE'98E SUN ‘OL0'6EZ SUN FS “uonrunoyut jou «TenuApYOD ag oF xe] Kq paxwjoap SSuatomho ssotun 10 dondaoxs somes vy oxo sopun uonsodsus oy o}gyiean3q gnu spucass ree ‘010'6€2 SUN 1 tnsINg ‘| Spzoood aujqnd at zapun pasojestp oq 03 pasinbas you pure renuapijioo SBMA Wotavonaus Hom a[psoy 20 uawssezey ‘woneURUOSI 30 sonoeid apa PoBele an 30 Pra ‘ulsay sorsnay, BurpieFas6 L107 “OE Kem 20'S 811 Worry WOE IO MID A BYR CYA § ye ‘SFosAREIg LA AIST, 40} SOUITOPIND,, 9107 Has Wples UOrxE} 2q pinom suoHoe “Au Jt ys JOUNSIC Jo ssovord HupyeU-uorstoap pure Poureigo woreuosut feworm oy ‘oxo “s soquiz0aq oy) 40} sisoq ayy jo ued se psn sem uoREUORL a4, “PIED 901 unuuaiap djoy © pasn seas! stp ut aatyexaqsfap pe feuoistsop sad yrog sem ‘2aniesoqi|9p ay) Jo und se posn sexs uomsseset 10 “SL61 {GESOY "A WRTMER puP (SL61) S-1S “ZEL'S'N Cb “ODP YOMOY SHY A EIN Suni ¢z9 P Puy [euoysop ox cog og yu siweUnoop paysonber ayy ‘oBa|Latd sip Lope asnsojos ‘£L'S'N Op UIA * Vd Bun €z9 We ‘BL .’ssa00xd BuryoU STB AL “(E861 310 “O'A) L69 "989 PCa ZIL “WTO MOTsIeG Bu! BT 8-01 mo} £q a]qe|feat aq 20u prow yoryo Sion} 10 sumpuesoWUT Ao sBoqatad StL “729 Ww "AN 9 SHDUTET UC. *WwauMi9Ad8 Jo youesg oA: queyaUl feuorIpen ofp Jo au0 TPnuapyuoo, axe spiooos y}qnd sowrayyn Buruquuerap ut pera ut .2Baqaud é HEIOGEEP FHL, cmv] Aq 199X2,, Ue PozTUBodas sey undD atuasdng BPEAaN SULol L10Z ‘Og Ae De soxdoo aouotuonuoo SYED ‘asi ood ‘foyer “outa eur ‘sono|saou sounyooug ‘so1/q vox sung} yURI9 posnun SSSTEHOR rad pa pe aumonad © Aa pad seoreut pousignd sue, spouse pi0de1 LON “posofoNp oq Or eonke ee pure spiooas Stand you a sonore asouy ,s[eHoret proses uow, axe Aynua yuouRtzano8 feo 8 Jo s[epoIvuraretoo 3849 Sopiaaad 1¢0'6¢z DYN. jog (0661) 0€9 ‘AN 901 “MEESpEIG “A BPN 30 AUD *010°6£7 SUN FBS ‘aansojostp-uow pue Aurenuapyu0d Jo. OAKS Ur sUtom SsozORUT otp Jo Bulouejeq Y “UOrTET}E}e1 JO Je9y snow Buniodas soffeanooua ‘souvpins S039 s9pun jenuopyucd day 09 pinoys Ul ase ghOUL '22Ko|dus ox 30 Anu9pt au pfoxsay o1 St uorEou[uuanod wane reond vee deur C 2un uptum u souueUs Ko oxp‘uone annsais09 Jagd ouroyu OF ooKyns sBoyyo areiodio9 w s1 pity aarsnay sy St (LAA § 2 200's16 “oN s0n0N DOag FBS -wowsserey fo FarydivoD J0pasuIege oroyyeioa 2q ym. ‘oovghu Pus avojunanuo> op alnfie4 oo OW BOG JO ID "a Tae OTT Sosiamdng Aq usUsseIeH |nyATeTUA, SOA “torsstunw0> Awumioddo wuouucordung jonba “gf 35 ‘ourssezoy 0} pojoafgns auv oy soaKo|duo Mp SoHE Ose SOA ou, Pure ore nsanut 0 poy " JO saouE|sUY SSaupPE 99 o¥e soKoydun xp paris sey (Oe, UorssiuwIOD kytemreddo weuiKo}durg jenby, soqis paun su, “uredwo5 0} amnrey 21 (1)(Q)A § 9 'Z00'S16 “ON 20: 'N DOA 88S ,-Iuaussserey jo TusurH}duros 10} ysurese parerperou aq im 2eKo|duia ou yyy Koyjod v easoyue puv ayeorunutiog nw JoKojduro oun “powueaseaun st P93 & Yon rmyy soadoyduzo amnsse O1,,£102 ‘og AoW am S€¢ sade ui punos ax storstaord DVN asou,, “poonpoud 29 01 patinbas rou SIM 1 ‘Si20dou 904; pe 20 ‘sayou yeurzogu ‘syoup ‘soaysy0M sommsuos won P tusex Aue YIP WOIXD aI OL (oppe siseudwa) (2)s0u'6€2 OVN. .cKousBe ows 2 Jo uoHoe jepIyo Po sondos ao aig 204 S90 eq UoHeitouInaop soxpo Au pue yafoad ojinads ¥ 01 Dunes sow SteMOWeUL Souas0go4 ‘STOUT Tera ge SatetuoAto SYEIB ‘sisi, oon ‘oreo ‘sourzaeuu‘sonoyswa‘sommooug 9 Adeox suo} yUEIq PosTUn FSTOT Frninyay ‘squid pewounuanol v dq payuud syeorew paystignd “u Moun} ‘opnjour sjouoreus prosos uoN -s[eLoyeUL piooat HOUsPAFEU| 1H: SS0P, pr09e% pue prodds aes [OW asesyd aL “SoU'6EzZ IVN pum soatde see or Poridde st wonruyop sepuns y “(pepe sismydius) 1S0'6¢2 VN feivotM9A68 j209} v Jo uoHoe feIoyJo ‘uv Jo Pionor at se 2a1os Jou Soop yen uonejuouunoop 10 Kue pu yofexd autoods © oy 2 10U SJeuNELU aoUaiayas “SHOUST SOT