J. Stephen Peek

Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 2, 408 P.3d 566 (2018) (holding, as a matter of first impression, that the “gaming privilege” provided in NRS 463.120(6) does not apply to information requested through discovery before that statute’s effective date) View Court Opinion

In re DISH Network Derivative Litigation, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 61, 401 P.3d 1081 (2017) (adopting the standard set forth in Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619 (1979) and concluding, as a matter of first impression, that Nevada courts should defer to the business judgment of a special litigation committee’s decision concerning whether pursuing a derivative suit is in the best interests of the corporation so long as the committee acts independently and conducts a good-faith, thorough investigation). View Court Opinion

Parametric Sound Corp. et al. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 59, 401 P.3d 1100 (2017) (establishing Nevada’s test for distinguishing direct from derivative shareholder claims for purposes of determining if the shareholder has standing to bring suit) View Court Opinion

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 52, 399 P.3d 334 (2017) (recognizing that the business judgment rule precludes judicial interference with corporate decision-making when a director or board acts in good faith and adopting the “because of” test for determining whether, for purposes of the work product doctrine, work was done in anticipation of litigation) View Court Opinion

Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 131 Nev. 834, 359 P.3d 1106 (2015) (establishing the test for evaluating whether a protective order is warranted to change the location or duration of a party’s deposition) View Court Opinion

Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 130 Nev. 118, 319 P.3d 618 (2014) (holding as a matter of first impression that NRS 50.125 requires disclosure of any document used to refresh a witness’s recollection before or while testifying, regardless of privilege, and granting writ of prohibition directing district court to halt production of purportedly privileged documents) View Court Opinion

Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 130 Nev. 578, 331 P.3d 876 (2014) (concluding that the existence of an applicable foreign, international privacy statute does not, by itself, prohibit Nevada state courts from ordering foreign parties to comply with Nevada’s discovery rules and accordingly civil litigants may not use such foreign statutes to excuse their compliance with discovery obligations in Nevada courts) View Court Opinion

Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 130 Nev. 643, 331 P.3d 905 (2014) (recognizing that because a corporation’s current management is the sole holder of its attorney-client privilege, Nevada law does not permit any judicially created class of persons exempt from that privilege’s protections) View Court Opinion

Wayne Newton adv. CSD LLC and Wayne Newton adv. McGrath